THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5789 of 2010 Dated:24.12.2010 Between: S.Surendra Rao, S/o.Venkoji Rao, Aged about 40 years, R/o.Desireddigaripalle, H/o.Regallu, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner And Y.Prasad Reddy, S/o.Yerrama Reddy, R/o.Desireddigaripalle, H/o.Regallu, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District, And another. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5789 of 2010 ORDER: In the suit filed by the petitioner, being O.S.No.204 of 1999, against the second respondent herein for specific performance of agreement of sale, the first respondent – third party to the suit, filed I.A.No.1031 of 2001. The same was allowed by the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Piler. The said order in I.A.No.1031 of 2001, dated 16.09.2010, is put in challenge in this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute that the petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 05.10.1998 against the second respondent. The first respondent came forward with the plea that the suit schedule property is owned by the second respondent and one Ganapathi Rao and that they agreed to sell the same for a sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- on 06.05.1998. He further alleged that they received Rs.25,000/- and executed agreement of sale on 15.08.1998 and subsequently received another sum of Rs.10,000/- duly endorsing on the backside of the agreement. Though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract the second respondent and another dodged the issue. The first respondent then filed O.S.No.167 of 2001. In the meanwhile, his vendors colluded with the petitioner and brought into existence the agreement of sale antedating the same, based on which, the petitioner filed O.S.No.204 of 1999. These allegations and averments were denied by the petitioner. The lower Court relied on the decision of this Court in Adapa Venkateswara Rao v Mohammad Suleman[1] and came to the conclusion that the first respondent is a proper and necessary party. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the first respondent is not a necessary party or a proper party, and therefore, the impugned order is erroneous. He also submits that as the suit filed by the petitioner is a prior suit, the first respondent having filed a suit subsequently, cannot again come on record in this suit. This Court after having given careful consideration is convinced that the submissions are misconceived. In Kasturi v Iyyamperumal[2] the Supreme Court observed that the expression “all the questions involved in the suit” used in sub-rule (2) of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, makes it abundantly clear that the legislature meant that the controversies raised as between the parties to the litigation must be gone into in the same suit. In a suit for specific performance, all the parties who have some right in the property are necessary parties. The relevant observations are as follows. In our view, a bare reading of this provision, namely, second part of Order 1 Rule 10 sub-rule (2) CPC would clearly show that the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if they are dead, their legal representatives as also a person who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. In equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor, however, not a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party. Tests are – (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. In view of the binding precedent, this Court does not find any grave error apparent on the face of the record. The Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Before parting with this case, this Court is constrained to make the observations with regard to the two citations referred to in the order in I.A.No.1031 of 2001 in O.S.No.204 of 1999, dated 16.09.2010, passed by the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Piler. The learned Judge has extracted the heading of the head note. This is highly improper. The heading of the head note or lead note which is generally highlighted in the law reports like Andhra Law Times, Andhra Legal Decisions, Law Summary, All India Reports etc., is only meant to focus on the substance of the actual head note appearing thereunder. A judicial order should never refer to the heading of the head note, as sometimes it is meaningless. Every Court should select the proper paragraph, which contains the ratio or obiter and extract the same, if so required. The Court below has referred to Adapa Venkateswara Rao and Chaganti Lakshmi Rajyan v Kolla Rama Rao[3]. Even the citations are also not properly mentioned. Every law report in the opening or the first page gives the mode of citation and all the Courts should invariably follow the same mode of citation. The Courts or the Judges presiding in the lower Courts cannot give the citations of the decisions the way they like nor extract the heading of the head note. If any Judge of the lower Court is resorting to such method of citing or such method of extracting the heading of the head note or the lead note without extracting or excerpting or quoting the correct passage from the judgment itself containing the ratio, the High Court should take a serious view and disqualify such Officer for being considered for promotion to next category. This Court is constrained to make the observation as above because of late without exception many of the Judges, be they the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judges, Hon’ble Senior Civil Judges, Hon’ble Additional District Judges or Hon’ble Principal District Judges, are adopting the wrong method of giving citations and quoting from the citations. This should be set right and there should be reformation in this regard. In the result, for the above reasons, the Civil Revision Petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24.12.2010 Note: 1. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this order to all the Courts subordinate to the High Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Registry is also directed to report compliance to this Court about this. B/o. vs [1] 1993 (2) ALT 446 [2] (2005) 6 SCC 733 [3] 1998 (1) ALT 621 (DB)