THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5182 OF 2011 Dated 9-12-2011 Between: Pydi Narayana Murthy and another. ..Petitioners. And: Korada Nagaratnam and others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5182 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 31-10- 2011 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa in I.A.No.208 of 2010 in I.A.No.180 of 2009 in O.S.No.8 of 2007 seeking a direction to the trial Court to implead the petitioners in final decree proceedings in I.A.No.180 of 2009 in O.S.No.8 of 2007. Petitioners herein are 3rd party implead petitioners. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs and 4 to 7 are the defendants in O.S.No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa. The parties will herein after be referred to as arrayed in the said suit for the sake of convenience. Plaintiffs herein filed a suit in O.S. No.8 of 2007 seeking partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares by metes and bounds and to a lot one such share to the plaintiffs and deliver the same to them and costs of the suit. The husband of the 1st plaintiff Korada Adinarayana @ Baburao filed a suit in O.S.No.2 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam against defendants for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 17-8-1991 and that after contesting the suit in respect of 1/4th share of the 1st defendant Namburu Krishna Rao Achari, husband of the 1st plaintiff Korada Adinarayana Chari died on 19-2-2002) leaving behind him the plaintiff as his legal heir. Then, they were added as Legal representatives Adinarayana in I.A.No.200 of 2002 in O.S.No.2 of 1999. Plaintiffs have complied with the decree in O.S.No.2 of 1999 and deposited the balance consideration of Rs.21,765/- on 29-11-2005 and subsequently, the defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed. There is no conflict between the plaintiff and the defendants therefore, the 1st plaintiff has taken the regular sale deed through the Court. As seen from, the record, late Korada Adinarayana alias Baburao who is the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.8 of 2007 filed a suit in O.S.No.2 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam against Namburu Krishna Rao Achari, Namburu Sasirekha, Namburu Mohanarao and Namburu Hymavathi (defendants 1 to 4) for specific performance. Basing on the agreement of sale dated 17-8-1991, the said suit was decreed. The plaintiff was granted decree in respect of undivided 1/4th share of the 1st defendant Namburu Krishna Achari and the plaintiff was directed to deposit the remaining balance consideration amount. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of undivided share seeking separate possession thereof. Late Korada Adiniarayana @ Baburao died intestate on 19-2-2002 leaving behind his wife Korada Nagaratnam, his children Korada Chakradhar Rao and Maddi Bhagyalakshmi who are defendants in O.S.No.8 of 2007. They filed a suit O.S.No.8 of 2007 seeking partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares by metes and bounds and allot one such share and deliver the same to them and costs of the suit. Subsequently, in the said suit, a preliminary decree has been passed on 16-9-2008 as prayed for. Then defendants 1 to 4 i.e., R.1 to R.4 herein filed I.A.No.180 of 2009 in O.S.No.8 of 2007 seeking for passing a final decree. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners in this present revision have filed I.A.No.208 of 2010 in I.A.No.180 of 2009 in O.S.No.8 of 2007 to implead themselves as respondents 5 and 6 in the said interlocutory application. Their case is that their vendors T.Narasayya had purchased Ac.0-10 cents and out of it, P.Narayanamurthy purchased Ac.0-07 cents of land in S.No.156/3 and G.Indiramma purchased Ac.-0.03 cents and they are necessary parties and they got measured and fixed the boundaries and then the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the present suit i.e., respondents 1 to 3 herein informed them that they obtained decree in O.S.No.8 of 2007. Their further case is that subsequently, petitioners herein in the present C.R.P. have filed O.S.No.45 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam seeking declaration that they are the owners of the plaint-A and B schedule vacant site respectively having title possession and enjoyment over the same and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants i.e., plaintiff in O.S.No.8 of 2007 and others from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint A and B vacant site respectively and for costs. The said suit was decreed by the lower Court. The trial Court dismissed the petition in I.A.No.208 of 2010 in I.A.No.180 of 2009 in O.S.No.8 of 2007 filed by the petitioners herein i.e., 3rd party petitioners. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed by the petitioners-third parties. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that I.A.No.180 of 2009 in O.S.No.8 of 2007 is part and parcel of O.S.No.8 of 2007 and that the trial Court failed to consider that R.1 i.e., 1st plaintiff alone obtained a decree and that the sale deed was not in conformity with the decree obtained. It is also submitted that if the petitioners are given opportunity, they could have claimed equities at the time of passing the final decree. Now it is not in dispute that the petitioners have been claiming their right through R.4 Namburu Krishnarao who is the 1st defendant and who had executed agreement of sale in favour of the husband of the 1st respondent-1st plaintiff late Korada Adinarayana who filed a suit O.S.No.2 of 1995 basing on the agreement of sale and ultimately obtained a decree in O.S.No.2 of 1995 on 3-8-1999. It is also not in dispute that R.1 to R.3 i.e., plaintiffs 1 to 3 have subsequently filed O.S.No.8 of 2007 against the respondents 4 to 7 i.e., defendants 1 to 4 and obtained a decree on 16-9-2008. Admittedly, the petitioners claimed to have considered the property on 29-12-2005. The sale is subsequent to the decree obtained by the husband of the 1st plaintiff-Korada Adinarayana @ Baburao. There cannot be any doubt to say that there are no merits in the revision. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. If the plaintiffs and the petitioners herein have any right, they can agitate their rights in the suit filed by them in O.S.No.45 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam and work out their remedies. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.No.7342 of 2011 is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 9-12-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5182 OF 2011 Dated 9-12-2011