HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.769 OF 2010 DATE:05-03-2010 BETWEEN: Yerukonda Anil Kumar …Petitioner AND Gandi Nakuludu & others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.769 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioner, who is a third party to the creditor insolvency proceedings in I.P.No.34 of 2008 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, filed I.A.No.297 of 2008 to implead him as one of the respondents in the I.P. proceedings. On dismissal of the same, vide orders, dated 16.11.2009, he filed the present revision contending that he along with his daughter and the second respondent herein who is none other than his son executed a registered sale deed, dated 24.7.2008 in favour of the third respondent and therefore, to perfect the title to the third respondent over the said property he is a proper and necessary party in the I.P. wherein, the creditor-first respondent herein sought to annul the sale deed, dated 24.7.2008. It is not disputed that the first respondent-creditor filed the above I.P. against the respondents 2 and 3 herein for adjudicating them as insolvents and for annulment of the sale deed, dated 24.7.2008 executed by the second respondent and others in favour of third respondent herein to the extent of 1/3rd share in the schedule property. The sole issue to be determined in the I.P. is whether or not the second respondent has committed the acts of insolvency and for adjudication thereof, the petitioner need not be impleaded as a party-respondent to the above I.P. particularly when he claims that the property covered by the sale deed, dated 24.7.2008 is his self-acquired property in which his son-second respondent has no rights but only to avoid complications, he (second respondent) joined as a party-vendor in the said sale deed executed by him. Such is the case, it is always open for the third respondent to examine the petitioner herein on his behalf and prove that the second respondent has no selable interest over the property covered by the said sale deed and it is exclusively self- acquired property of the petitioner herein. In that view of the matter, the dismissal of the impugned I.A. by the lower Court dose not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the threshold. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 05, 2010 Tsr.