THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.Nos.3859, 3959 & 4378 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: All the above CRPs arises out of the orders passed in one suit, therefore they are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioner is third party to the suit. Respondents 1 and 2 are plaintiffs and respondents 3 and 4 are defendants in the suit O.S.No.141 of 2007. C.R.P.No.3859 of 2008 is filed questioning the order made in I.A.No.162 of 2008 in O.S.No.141 of 2007 dated 27.8.2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, whereunder the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to implead the petitioner as Defendant No.3 in the suit and to contest the suit was dismissed. C.R.P.No.3959 of 2008 is filed questioning the order made in I.A.No.163 of 2008 in I.A.No.100 of 2008 in O.S.No.141 of 2007 dated 27.8.2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, whereunder the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to implead the petitioner as Respondent No.3 in the petition I.A.No.100 of 2008 and to contest the matter and to amend the petition was dismissed. C.R.P.No.4378 of 2008 is filed being aggrieved by the order made in I.A.No.100 of 2008 in O.S.No.141 of 2007 dated 16.9.2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, whereunder the application filed under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 94(e) of CPC seeking appointment of Receiver to take possession of plaint schedule property and to conduct leasehold auction of Vegetable market and to deposit the amount pending disposal of the suit, was allowed. According to the petitioner/third party, she has purchased the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 26.12.2002 and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Further, petitioner also filed suit in O.S.No.1 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Court, Nellore for specific performance of agreement of sale and the said suit is pending. While that being so, the respondents 1 and 2 filed suit in O.S.No.141 of 2007 against respondents 3 and 4 for recovery of Rs.25,000/- per month from 16.9.2005 till delivery of possession of plaint schedule property as per the terms of lease deed dated 16.9.2005. In the said suit, respondents 1 and 2 also filed I.A.No.100 of 2008 under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 94(e) of CPC for appointment of Receiver to take possession of plaint schedule property and to conduct leasehold auction for vegetable market and to deposit the amount pending disposal of the suit and the said I.A. was allowed by order dated 16.9.2008. According to the petitioner, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the order dated 16.9.2008 appointing receiver would adversely affect her interest and she will be deprived of her possession over the property. Therefore, she is a proper and necessary party to come on record and contest the suit. Hence, she filed I.A.Nos.162 and 163 of 2008 to implead her as party respondent in I.A.No.100 of 2008 and defendant in the main suit, which were dismissed by order dated 27.8.2008. Being aggrieved by the said orders, petitioner filed the present C.R.P.Nos.3859 and 3959 of 2008 respectively. Petitioner also filed C.R.P.No.4378 of 2008 seeking leave of the Court to challenge the order passed in I.A.No.100 of 2008 dated 16.9.2008 for appointment of Receiver. Few facts that are necessary to appreciate the issue involved in these CRPs. are: According to the respondents 1 and 2, they have leased out the suit land to the respondents 3 and 4 for conducting market. In fact, they have entered into an agreement of lease and the respondents 3 and 4 are in possession of the property. Since they are not paying the lease amount, respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit in O.S.No.141 of 2007. Whereas it is the case of the third respondent that it was never in possession of the property, therefore question of payment of arrears of rent does not arise. This (lease between plaintiff and defendants) was also the subject matter of two writ petitions before this Court. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that whatever may be merits, since the petitioner purchased the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 26.12.2002, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.1 of 2005 on the file of District Court, Nellore, petitioner is not only proper, but also necessary party for adjudication of the issue involved therein, particularly to protect her own interest over the property. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 Mr.P.Sridhar Reddy strenuously contended that the petitioner is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit or the I.As. filed therein. Petitioner is a third party and has no interest whatsoever in the suit schedule property. Even if she has any interest, the very nature of relief sought for in the suit, there is no necessity of petitioner joining as party and contest the suit. The suit is a simple suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The appointment of receiver is nothing to do with the petitioner. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the applications holding that the petitioner is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit or to the I.As. and by doing so, the Court below has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The learned counsel for respondents states that the suit in O.S.No.141 of 2007 is neither a title suit nor is recovery of possession etc. and the writ petitions are pending and the agreement entered by the petitioner was not impounded as required under law for being admitted in evidence in the suit filed by her. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel though appears to be arising out of similar suits, but in those cases, there was no order of appointment of a receiver to take over possession of the property involved therein. Thus, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel have no relevance to the facts of the present case. In this case, it is asserted by the petitioner that she has purchased the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale, which is subject matter of suit in O.S.No.1 of 2005 on the file of District Court, Nellore. May be, the very suit in O.S.No.14 of 2007 was filed for recovery of arrears of rent on the basis of lease agreement entered between the parties and if the respondents 3 and 4 are in possession of the property althrough, probably what the learned counsel for respondents Mr.P.Sridhar Reddy contended stands good. Once the receiver is appointed to take over possession and to auction the leasehold rights for conducting market, the things stand on a different footing. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have filed counter in the earlier writ petition and stated that they have never taken possession of the suit schedule property. Whereas it is the definite case of the petitioner that she has purchased the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 26.12.2002 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as of today. Therefore, if the petitioner is not impleaded as party defendant to the suit, it would definitely harm her interest and if receiver interferes into the property said to be in possession of the petitioner, they would definitely create problems to the petitioner. Therefore, to defend her interest effectively, petitioner is not only proper party, but also necessary party to be impleaded as party defendant to the suit as well as in the I.As. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that it is just and necessary to implead the petitioner as party defendant to the suit as well as to the I.As. filed therein for protecting her interest over the property effectively. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 27.8.2008 are set aside and I.A.Nos.162 and 163 of 2008 are ordered accordingly. Further, the order dated 16.9.2008 for appointment of receiver shall also stands set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below for fresh consideration, after hearing all the parties concerned. In the interest of justice, it is also just and necessary to direct the District Court, Nellore to club and tag on the suit in O.S.No.141 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovur along with suit O.S.No.1 of 2005 on the file of District Court, Nellore and to be tried together for avoiding conflicting judgments. Accordingly, all the CRPs are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 6.7.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.Nos.3859, 3959 & 4378 of 2008 6.7.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.Nos.3859, 3959 & 4378 of 2008 Date: 6th July, 2010 Between: Sivareddy Sumathi .. Petitioner in all C.R.Ps. And Padella Venkata Subba Reddy and others. .. Respondents in all C.R.Ps.