HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4809 OF 2007 DATE:16-11-2010 BETWEEN Pendrala Bullamma …Petitioner AND Khandavalli Kamala Devi & others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4809 OF 2007 ORDER: Petitioner, who is a third party to the proceedings in O.S.No.2051 of 2003 filed for simplicitor injunction against the defendants, filed I.A.No.629 of 2005 to implead him as 8th defendant in the suit claiming that she purchased the suit schedule property from the defendants under a registered sale deed, dated 29.6.2004. On dismissal of the said I.A. by IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada on 19.09.2007, the present revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a purchaser of the suit schedule property under the sale deed, dated 29.6.2004 and therefore, he is a proper and necessary party to contest the claim of the first respondent-plaintiff and hence, the Court below ought to have allowed the I.A. By placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Vasavi Kanyaka Seva Trust, Ramanthapur v. District Collector, R.R.District, Hyderabad and Others (2000 (3) ALD 115), the learned counsel contended that there is no bar for impleading the third party in a suit filed for injunction simplicitor. Admittedly, the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.856 of 2005 for injunction in respect of the very same suit schedule property in which he also filed I.A.No.393 of 2005 seeking temporary injunction against the plaintiff-first respondent herein and that the same was dismissed with costs on 8.7.2005 holding that she is not in possession of the suit schedule property and that the same has been confirmed in the appeal. In the present suit, the plaintiff-first respondent herein filed I.A.No.859 of 2003 for interim injunction against the predecessors in title of the petitioner herein. On contest, interim injunction was passed on 23.2.2004 against the defendants i.e. vendors of the petitioner herein restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-first respondent herein. Against the said order, no appeal has been preferred. At that stage, the petitioner herein came up with the impugned I.A. to implead her in the suit stating that she purchased the suit schedule property from the defendants under a registered sale deed. When the predecessors in title of the petitioner (defendants) themselves suffered an injunction in the suit filed by the plaintiff-first respondent herein based upon the sale deed, dated 28.2.2002, the petitioner cannot get a better right than her vendors had. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be impleaded in the suit against the dominant will of the plaintiff. The Revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 16, 2010 Tsr.