HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 2148 of 2009 WEDNESDAY THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 Between: D.Balraj Goud .. Petitioner And Peddi Laxmipathi And three others .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10.12.2008 made in I.A. No. 4454 of 2008 in O.S. No.4 of 2005 by the Principal District Judge, R.R. District, at L.B. Nagar, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10, Sub Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to implead him as 4th defendant in the suit. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff, who is the 1st respondent herein, filed the suit in O.S. No.4 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, for specific performance of agreement of sale executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in his favour in the month of November, 2002. Subsequently, the 1st defendant disclosed that the defendants took loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from the revision petitioner- proposed 4th defendant in the year 1999 by executing conditional mortgage deed by mortgaging the schedule property in his favour. While so, after closure of trial and the matter was coming up for arguments, the petitioner filed the application in I.A. No. 4454 of 2008 seeking to implead him as proposed 4th defendant, and the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision. The ground on which the petitioner sought his impleadment as proposed 4th defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale, is that he advanced loan of Rs.3,50,000/- to the defendants, who mortgaged the schedule property towards security. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has filed the present application at a belated stage i.e. after the trial was over and the suit was posted for arguments. As could be seen from the facts, even before the agreement of sale was executed in favour of the plaintiff, the documents relating to the schedule property were mortgaged by the defendants in favour of the petitioner for obtaining the loan. Therefore, it appears that certain serious disputed questions of fact and law are involved in the suit. Even though the application filed by the petitioner seeking his impleadment as 4th defendant in the suit was dismissed by the learned District Judge at the stage when the suit is ripe for arguments, no prejudice whatsoever would cause to the petitioner, inasmuch as the result of suit shall be necessarily subject to the mortgage charges over the property in question, and more so, when the petitioner is entitled to recover the loan amount from the defendants, in the event, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, it is not necessary for the petitioner to be impleaded as necessary party to the suit. In the above view of the matter, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 5th August, 2009 bcj