THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3631 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2011 passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in I.A.No.326 of 2011 in O.S.No.1130 of 2008. The petitioner herein filed the above suit for declaration that the non-possessory agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney under document No.423/07, dated 12.12.2007, is null and void. During the pendency of the suit, the third respondent herein (proposed party) filed O.S.No.1300 of 2008 against the petitioner herein and his father (second respondent herein) for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner herein contested O.S.No.1300 of 2008 by filing a written statement. Both the suits were clubbed together and evidence was recorded in O.S.No.1300 of 2008. After closure of the evidence, and when the matters were coming up for arguments, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.326 of 2011 in O.S.No.1130 of 2008 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C for amendment of the plaint by adding the relief of declaration that the nominal sale deed dated 27.12.2008 executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant is null and void; to direct the defendants not to misuse the blank promissory note, cheques and other blank papers, wherein defendant Nos.1 and 2 obtained his signatures and also for permanent injunction restraining the third defendant not to alienate the plaint schedule property based on the nominal sale deed executed by the first defendant, by adding the proposed parties as defendant Nos.3 to 5. The first respondent/first defendant contested the application by filing a counter-affidavit denying the petition averments. The Court below, after considering the entire material available on record, dismissed the Interlocutory Application. Hence, this revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent and perused the entire material available on record. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed O.S.No.1130 of 2008 for declaration of non-possessory agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. On filing of the said suit, the third respondent herein filed O.S.No.1300 of 2008 against the petitioner and his father i.e., first respondent herein. In the suit filed by the third respondent herein in O.S.No.1300 of 2008, instead of taking a plea or filing counter claim for cancellation of the sale deed, the petitioner herein sought for amendment of the pleadings with regard to cancellation of sale deed dated 27.10.2008. The cause of action for filing the suit is only for cancellation of agreement of sale under document No.423/2007, as the same was obtained by defendant Nos.1 and 2 on the misrepresentation that the said document is a mortgage deed. Further, the petitioner herein has not taken any plea and allowed the trial in O.S.No.1300 of 2008. After the trial is commenced and completed, the petitioner filed this Interlocutory Application seeking amendment of the plaint in O.S.No.1130 of 2008, wherein respondents 3 to 5 herein are not parties and without impleading them as parties to the suit, by way of amendment they cannot be added as parties to the suit. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner represented that an I.A is already filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C before the Court below to implead respondents 3 to 5 as defendants 3 to 5, but it was returned and the same will be re-presented. Without impleading the third respondent, who filed O.S.No.1300 of 2008 nor making any counter claim in the suit filed by the third respondent, the petitioner is not entitled to seek amendment of the plaint in the present suit. In view of the same, the Court below rightly dismissed the Interlocutory Application and the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 09.09.2011 va