HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4821 OF 2009 DATE:14-10-2011 BETWEEN Kagitha Nara Narayana …Petitioner AND Borra Narasamma (died) and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4821 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 7.4.1988 against the first defendant-Borra Narasamma and upon the death of first defendant, he impleaded second respondent herein as legal representative of first defendant stating that deceased first defendant executed a Will in favour of second respondent herein and therefore, he is necessary and proper party to the suit. On dismissal of the suit, he filed A.S.No.178 of 2007, in which, he filed impugned I.A.No.288 of 2008 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead respondents 3 and 4 herein as party-respondents to the appeal stating that respondents 3 and 4 filed O.S.No.278 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam for declaration alleging that they are legal representatives of the deceased first defendant- Borra Narasamma and alleged that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, that earlier they failed to implead themselves in A.T.C.No.15 of 2000 on the file of Special Officer, Tenancy Tribunal filed by the deceased first defendant for eviction and the same was dismissed and was confirmed in C.M.A.No.20 of 2005 and therefore, they are necessary and proper parties to the appeal. It is not disputed that the deceased first defendant filed A.T.C.No.15 of 2000 seeking eviction of the petitioner herein and pending the same, I.A.No.87 of 2005 was filed seeking to implead the respondents 3 and 4 herein as legal representatives of late Narasamma (first defendant). The said application was dismissed on 15.4.2005 and the same was confirmed in C.M.A.No.20 of 2005. Petitioner herein was party-respondent in the said A.T.C. in which I.A.No.87 of 2005 was filed to implead the respondents 3 and 4 as legal representatives of deceased first respondent. Therefore, he got the knowledge about the claim put forth by respondents 3 and 4 herein, but he has not chosen to implead them in the suit and allowed the suit to dispose of on 11.10.2007 long after dismissal of I.A.No.87 of 2005 and C.M.A.No.20 of 2005. When the petitioner deliberately has not impleaded the respondents 3 and 4 in the suit and claimed that the second respondent is the legal representative of deceased first defendant by virtue of Will allegedly executed by first defendant, now he cannot alter the pleadings by impleading the proposed parties. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. OCTOBER 14, 2011 Tsr.