THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4955 of 2009 Date of Order: 24.06.2011 Between: Satyakala Agro Oil Products Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director Dhenkula Sai Prasad. ..Petitioner And Shaik Ameer and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4955 of 2009 ORDER: - Petitioner/third party to the suit in O.S.No.458 of 1995 filed for partition of the suit schedule property, wherein the petitioner’s vendor-1st defendant remained ex parte, which resulted in passing a preliminary decree and on filing I.A.No.1003 of 2006 for passing of final decree by the 1st respondent/plaintiff, filed the impugned I.A.No.396 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead it as a party/defendant to the final decree proceedings contending that Abdul Shukur and his brother Md.Jafer purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0-83½ cents in R.S.No.211/1 out of Ac.1-67 cents from Komma Ramaiah under registered sale deed bearing document No.706/1942, since they purchased the land in an extent of Ac.0-88 cents in R.S.No.211/2 from Galla Subba Rao under registered sale deed, dated 10.05.1940; that subsequently Mohd.Jafer died issueless; that Amin Bibi, wife of Farid Saheb, who is the mother of Abdul Jaffer, Aziz Unnisa, W/o.Mohd.Jaffer and other legal heirs executed registered relinquishment deed on 30.12.1983 bearing Doc.No.1888/1983 in favour of Abdul Shukur relinquishing their joint rights in ‘A’ schedule property, from whom the petitioner company purchased the said property and hence, they are necessary and proper parties. On the contest made by the 1st respondent/plaintiff, the lower court dismissed the I.A. holding that the petitioner is a resident of Gangur where the plaint schedule property is shown; that it cannot be presumed that the petitioner do not have knowledge of filing of final decree petition; that only the persons who have interest in the suit claim can be impleaded to the proceedings, but a third party rights cannot be adjudicated in the suit. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed. Sri S.Ravi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others[1] and the judgment of this Court in Khaja Abdul v. Mahabub Saheb[2], contends that the petitioner is a necessary and proper party to the suit, since it is claiming the property through Abdul Shukur who is admittedly a joint owner of the property; that the petitioner is adversely affected by virtue of the partition decree passed, if any, when its claim is not adverse to the claim of its vendor. Therefore, the lower court fell in error in dismissing the I.A., whereas the learned counsel for the respondents emphatically contends that when the vendor of the petitioner remained ex parte, the lower court cannot adjudicate about the relinquishment of his rights under deeds referred to by the petitioner; as held by the Supreme Court in Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna[3], passing of final decree is only an administrative act and the final decree has to be passed in terms of the preliminary decree, unless the preliminary decree is modified. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the question as to whether the final decree is to be passed in terms of the preliminary decree and while passing the final decree, whether the Court can go into the relinquishment deed executed to deprive the parties in whose favour a preliminary decree has been passed. Suffice it to say that in a suit for partition when the petitioner is claiming for partition of the suit schedule property and the vendor of the petitioner is also a joint owner having half share in the suit schedule property, petitioner can always get itself impleaded and can see that the allotment of a particular share, which are in its possession, to its vendor in the final decree. Whether the lower court can enlarge the scope of enquiry and go into the correctness of the relinquishment deed or not or can pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree, cannot be decided at this stage, unless the petitioner is impleaded as party-respondent to the final decree proceedings. The impugned order passed by the lower court is accordingly set aside and the I.A. is allowed impleading the petitioner as party respondent to the final decree proceedings. All the contentions are left open. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 24.06.2011 Lmv THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4955 of 2009 Date of Order: 24.06.2011 [1] 2005(3) ALD 83 (SC) [2] AIR 1979 AP 152 [3] 2009(9) SCC 689