THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVL REVISION PETITION NO.2069 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in I.A.No.674 of 2009 in O.S.No.338 of 2008 dated 25.02.2010. I.A.No.674 of 2009 is a petition filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and under Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, to permit him to add one Budumuru Nandikeswararao as the second defendant in the Suit. The Court below noted the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner herein that he had already sold the schedule property to third parties, and observed that these allegations would have to be considered at the time of the trial of the Suit but not at the time of the interim application. The Court below noted that, in the counter averments, there is no whisper that the petitioner herein would sustain irreparable loss and injury if the alleged purchaser were arrayed as a defendant in the Suit. The trial Court observed that, if the application was allowed it would not cause prejudice to the petitioner, and on the other hand if the petition was not allowed it would certainly cause prejudice to the respondent-plaintiff and also lead to multiplicity of litigation. The Court below allowed the application. Sri K.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, in the written statement filed in the Suit for specific performance, the petitioner-defendant had referred to an earlier notice issued on behalf of the petitioner-defendant by his counsel on 20.06.2006, wherein the petitioner had categorically stated that an agreement had already been entered into with third parties for the sale of land. Learned counsel would contend that, since the respondent- plaintiff was well aware of the petitioner’s contention that the plot had already been sold, he ought to have arrayed the purchaser at the inception of the Suit itself, but not by way of a subsequent application to implead him as the second defendant. I am afraid I cannot agree. The application in the I.A. is filed only to implead the alleged purchaser as the second defendant in the Suit. Whether the agreement of sale alleged to have been entered into between the petitioner herein and the first respondent is genuine or not; whether the petitioner herein had already entered into an agreement of sale with third parties prior to the alleged agreement between the petitioner and the first respondent; whether the second defendant was the person to whom the petitioner had sold the plot; are all matters which are required to be adjudicated in the course of the Suit proceedings. The application in the I.A. is only to implead the alleged purchaser as the second defendant in the suit. The Court below has exercised its discretion to implead him as the second defendant on the ground that it was not only to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings but also because prejudice would be caused to the respondent-plaintiff if the said person was not impleaded as the second defendant. The discretion exercised by the Court below does not suffer from any patent illegality necessitating interference in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As mentioned hereinabove, the various questions in dispute are matters to be adjudicated only at the time of final adjudication of the Suit. Observations, if any, made either in the order of the Court below or in the present order touching upon the merits of the dispute shall not be taken into consideration by the Court below while adjudicating the Suit. The Civil Revision Petition, however, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 23rd July 2010 RRB