IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 8 2 8 OF 2010 Between: Mohammed Salahuddin s/o MM Ahmed, aged about 48 years, 0cc. Business, r/o H.No. 12-12-160/14, Ravindranagar, Sitaphalmandi, Secunderabad. … Petitioner V/s. R. Sundaram s/o late N. Rama Murthy, aged 40 years, Occ. Railway Employee, r/o H.No.181, Trimurthi Housing Colony, Mahendra Hills, Secunderabad & 4-Ors. …. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. D. Madhava Rao Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 828 OF 2010 O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 23-3-2009 passed in I.A.No. 2116 of 2008 in OS.No. 84 of 2008 by the learned II-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, dismissing the application filed under Order-1, Rule-10 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 151 seeking to implead the petitioner as Defendant No.5 in the main suit, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner herein is the proposed property states that he is in possession of the suit schedule premises and let out the same to the fourth respondent. It is stated that on 28-11-1998 the plaintiff, defendant No.3 and mother of the plaintiff represented by GPA holder, Arundathi executed an agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule property and paid entire sale consideration, but as there was ban for registration and LGC case pending, so registered sale deed could not be obtained, therefore he filed OS.No.715 of 2007 on the file of the Court of III- Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against plaintiff and defendants seeking specific performance of agreement of sale. Hence, his presence is necessary. 3. On the other hand, respondent No.1 (plaintiff) filed his counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it is averred that the revision petitioner herein has no locus standi and that he is neither necessary nor proposed party to the main suit and therefore sought for dismissal of the interlocutory application. The other respondents, who are defendants have not filed their counter-affidavits. 4. On the basis of rival contentions raised by both the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge framed the following point for consideration: “Whether the petitioner is necessary or proper party to the suit ?” 5. After hearing both the parties and on appreciation of the facts and circumstances, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the interlocutory application which was filed under Order-1, Rule-10 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 151 seeking to implead the petitioner as Defendant No.5 in the main suit holding that if the petitioner claims to have purchased the property in question and filed suit seeking specific performance and till the suit is decreed and sale deed is executed in his favour he will not get any right over the said property or any portion of it in question. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed contending that in a suit for partition the parties presence is required but since the petitioner is in possession of the property in his own right under the agreement, his participation becomes all the more important and if the plaintiff succeed in the suit, the petitioner herein who has been in possession will be dispossessed and therefore the petitioner should be heard for proper and fair adjudication. 7. Heard the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner, perused the impugned order and the material placed on record. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on perusing the record, while concurring with the findings of the learned trial Judge, I am of the opinion that if the petitioner gets decree and sale deed in the suit filed by him, it is left open to him to pursue the remedies available to him in accordance with law but he cannot interfere in the partition of the property among the respondents. The learned trial Judge is right in holding that the application itself is misconceived. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 10. As a corollary to the dismissal of the main civil revision petition, CRPMP.No. 1160 of 2010 which was filed seeking to stay all further proceedings including execution in OS.No. 84 of 2008 on the file of the Court of III-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, stands on the same footing. ___________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI 05-03-2010. I s L COURT HALL NO. 33 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 8 2 8 OF 2010 CIRCULATION ENTRY No. 9 4 Date: 05-03-2010 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43