IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4905 OF 2008 Between: Smt.Waheeda Begum and two others …Petitioners A n d Boddeda Venkata Nageswara Rao and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4905 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 15-09-2008 in I.A.No.1269 of 2008 in O.S.No.800 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to come on record as defendants 3 to 5, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed the suit against respondents 2 and 3 herein for specific performance of agreement of sale. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property was partitioned between D-1 and D-2 under a registered partition deed dated 29-12-2001; that plaintiff purchased an extent of 90 sq. yards with a house thereon from D-2 and D-3 under a registered agreement of sale dated 19-04-2004 for Rs.5,93,000/- and on the date of agreement, he paid Rs.1,90,000/- towards advance and defendants 1 and 2 are evading to execute the sale deed. D-1 and D-2 filed a written statement contesting the suit. Necessary issues were settled and the trial of the suit commenced. P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The first defendant filed his affidavit in chief and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2 and then failed to appear before the Court for cross-examination. Hence, his evidence was eschewed on 01-07-2008 and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, D-1 filed an application for reopening the evidence and the said petition was allowed and D.W.1 was cross-examined. 4. While the matter stood thus, the petitioners herein, who are third parties, filed I.A.No.1269 of 2008 seeking to come on record as D-3 to D-5. According to them, the suit property and other properties originally belonged to one Sh.Meera Saheb, who is their grandfather and he died intestate leaving behind Md.Ibrahim, Md.Illyas, Mariyam Bibi and Rubiya Bibi as his legal heirs. After the death of their father, the petitioners and their mother also became entitled for equal rights in the suit property. According to the petitioners, they are also entitled for 1/6th share in the suit property along with their brothers D-1 and D-2. The petitioners contend that D-1 and D-2 have no exclusive rights to sell the suit property. They further alleged that the plaintiff with a mala fide intention created the suit agreement dated 19-04-2004 in collusion with D-1 and D-2. The first respondent-plaintiff would contend that the petitioners are also aware of the registered partition deed dated 29-12-2001 under which the properties were divided and the suit property fell to the share of D-1 and D-2 in the said partition and the petitioners have no right in the suit property. The defendants filed a counter contending that the petitioners proposed defendants are also class-I heirs and they have equal rights in the suit property and that they are also proper and necessary parties to the suit. 5. In the written statement, D-2 and D-3 have not taken any plea that they are sisters and they were also having joint rights over the suit property. According to the plaintiff, in the partition effected on 29-12-2001 by a registered document, the said property fell to the share of D-1 and D-2 and the plaintiff has discharged the mortgage debt due to one K.Venkat Rao on 16-04-2003 and cancelled the mortgage deed Ex.B-1 executed by D-2 and in the said document also it was recited that the property fell to the share of D-2 in the partition dated 29-12-2001. According to the plaintiff, D-1 and D-2 have been demanding more money than what was agreed upon for sale consideration and D-1 and D-2 on that score were evading execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for specific performance. It is obvious that the petitioners-proposed D-3 to D-5 are hand in glove with D-1 and D-2 and the present application I.A.No.1269 of 2008 was filed when the matter reached the stage of arguments only to further delay and protract the conclusion of the trial. In view of the recitals in Ex.A-1 agreement and Ex.B-1 mortgage deed, the learned Senior Civil Judge rightly held that the petitioners are neither proper nor necessary parties to the suit. The impugned order rejecting their request to come on record does not, therefore, call for any interference. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd June, 2011 Lrkm