THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3215 of 2011 (Dated : 23-12-2011) Between: Pesala Ramanjaneyulu S/o Palakondarayudu …Petitioner A n d Shaik Sadiquinnisa W/o Mahaboob Basha and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3215 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 22-3-2011 passed in I.A.No.82 of 2011 in O.S.No.73 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the petition for impleadment of the petitioner as 2nd defendant in the suit. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by the petitioner-proposed 2nd defendant are:- Shaik Sadiquinnisa-1st respondent filed O.S.No.73 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty against Bepari Thanumaiah Basha-2nd respondent for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of 64-44 square yards comprising Survey No.680. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.82 of 2011 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment as 2nd defendant in the suit. He claims that he is the owner and purchaser of the major portion of the suit schedule property. When the husband of the 1st respondent, and the 2nd respondent tried to dispossess him, he filed O.S.No.202 of 2010 for perpetual injunction and therefore, he is a necessary party to O.S.No.73 of 2010. The plaintiffs resisted the petition filed by the petitioner seeking his impleadment as 2nd defendant in the suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the petition by order dated 22-3-2011. Hence this revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 25-8-2011. The 2nd respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and S r i D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the material brought on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents 1 and 2 colluded together and filed O.S.No.73 of 2010 knowing fully well that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property and in the event of any decree being passed in favour of the plaintiff basing on the alleged agreement of sale said to have been executed by the defendants, the rights of the petitioner over the property will be affected and therefore, he is a necessary party to the suit being O.S.No.73 of 2010. He would further contend that the impleadment of the petitioner is necessary to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Basant Kumar Soni v. Mukund Das Soni and others[1]. 6. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent– plaintiff while supporting the order impugned would contend that the petitioner has no title over the suit schedule property and if he has any claim over the property, he has to establish the same in the suit filed by him, i.e., O.S.No.202 of 2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty. He would further contend that the dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is outside the purview of O.S.No.73 of 2010, which is based on an agreement of sale executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent. 7. In Basant Kumar’s case, a learned Single Judge of this Court was dealing with a situation where the subject matter in the suit filed by the proposed parties and in the other suit is one and the same. For better appreciation, I may refer para.7 of the judgment, which reads as hereunder:- “7. The petitioner herein filed suit in O.S.No.47 of 2009 basing on an agreement of sale, dated 19-12-2008 which was executed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein represented by their GPA holder Satyanarayana Soni in respect of 14 flats in third floor bearing Nos. 302, 303, 306 to 308, 310 to 314 and 316 to 319 and Shop No. 4 and 10 out of the apartment Chandra Towers in Sy.No.313 Part, Rajampet, Sangareddy, Medak District. Whereas the 1st respondent herein (Mukund D a s Soni) filed suit O.S.No.58 of 2009 against the respondents 2 and 3 herein and their GPA holder basing on the agreement of sale, dated 14-02-2008 in respect of 14 flats in third floor and shop Nos. 4 and 10 in ground floor of Chandra Towers, situated at Ward No.3, Block No.5, Rajampet, Sangareddy town, Medak District. A categorical finding has been recorded by the trial Court that the suit schedule property in O.S.No.47 of 2009 and in O.S.No.58 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy is one and the same and the parties in both the suits are one and the same. The petitioner herein wanted to come on record as 3rd defendant in the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein against the respondents 2 and 3 who are the defendants in that suit.” 8. In the cited case, the proposed party had not claimed title adverse to the defendant/s already on record. Therefore, the cited case has no application to the facts of the case on hand. The petitioner sought his impleadment as 2nd defendant in the suit filed by the 1st respondent on the ground that he is the owner and possessor of the suit land. In a way, he is claiming independent title and possession adverse to the title of vendor of the plaintiff in the suit. When the petitioner is claiming independent title and possession adverse to the sole defendant, who is 2nd respondent herein, permitting him to come on record, in the array of the defendants expands the scope of the suit. In a way, the suit for specific performance stands converted to title dispute between the defendants inter se. Such course is not permissible under sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 CPC. In the given facts and circumstances, the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse and unreasonable. The order impugned, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.23-12-2011 RAR [1] 2010 (4) ALD 490