IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.185 OF 2011 Between : Indukuru Anand .... PETITIONER A N D Govindu Brahmananda Swamy and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.185 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 27.12.2010, in I.A.No.688 of 2010 in I.A.No.26 of 2010 in O.S.No.47 of 2010, on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to implead the petitioner herein / third party as defendant No.2 in the suit and order consequential amendment, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner purchased the schedule property under an agreement of sale, dated 21.04.2010, from respondent No.2 herein for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-; that the petitioner paid an amount Rs.1,00,000/- as advance to respondent No.2 on 21.04.2010 and obtained agreement of sale in his favour and agreed to pay the balance consideration on or before 21.07.2010; that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 08.05.2010 to the respondent No.2; that subsequently the petitioner approached the respondents to execute a sale deed, but the respondent No.2 failed to execute the sale deed; that the petitioner issued a notice, dated 12.07.2010, but the respondent No.2 failed to execute the sale deed; that subsequently the petitioner came to know that respondent No.1 filed a collusive suit for cancellation of gift deed, dated 27.07.2009 executed in favour of respondent No.2; that the respondents got knowledge about the agreement of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, dated 21.04.210; that respondent No.1 filed a suit against respondent No.2, who is his son; that the suit is only to defeat the agreement of sale, dated 21.04.2010, and that the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that respondent No.2 obtained gift deed by forging the signatures of respondent No.1; that the question involved in the suit is with regard to correctness or otherwise of the execution of gift deed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2; that the rights of the proposed party would not in any manner be affected and that the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same and hence, he pays to dismiss the revision. 4. Order I Rule 10 CPC reads as follows: “The primary object of enacting Order I Rule 10 CPC is to bring before the Court, at one and the same time, all the persons interested in the dispute so that all the controversies in the suit may be finally determined once for all in the presence of all the parties without delay, inconvenience and expenses of several actions, trials and inconclusive adjudication. But, the party who wants to invoke aid of the said provision, must show some semblance of right over the property in dispute.” 5. According to the petitioner, the suit was filed by respondent No.1, against his son i.e., respondent No.2 is a collusive suit and if the suit is to be decreed, the rights of the agreement holders would be seriously affected and therefore, he may be impleaded as respondent No.2 in the suit. 6. However, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision reported in Canara Bank V. M/s. Mettallica Industries Ltd[1], wherein it was held thus: “In the suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of outstanding amount against the Defendant No.1, the present Applicants would be of no help and assistance in the adjudication of the issues involved in the suit nor can the present Applicants oppose the claim of the plaintiff bank on its merits. If the plaintiff bank is able to establish its own case and prove that the Defendant No.1 compay is liable to make payment of the dues, the Applicants would not be in position to prevent such decree being passed in favour of plaintiff bank. It is indeed very difficult to comprehend how in the nature of the present suit which is suit for recovery of amount filed by the plaintiff bank against the Defendant No.1 company, in the absence of the Applicants workmen the Court would not be able to decide the dispute effectually and completely. The Applicants workmen neither would be of any assistance to the Court in adjudication of the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 company nor can these workmen be said to have any direct interest I the subject matter of the suit. The workmen’s plea that they have first charge over the properties of the defendant No.1 company mortgaged and hypotheticated with plaintiff bank for recovery of their due wages cannot justify their impleadment in the suit. At best such plea can be raised in appropriate proceedings as and when mortgaged and hypothecated properties are put to sale. The questions involved in the suit only refer and relate to the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants and the said questions have no hearing so far as the present Applicants workmen are concerned”. Therefore, in the factual ground of that case, it was held that the workmen who wanted to come on record are not necessary parties. But in this case, the proposed party said to have been entered into an agreement with respondent No.2, dated 21.04.2010, and by virtue of the said agreement, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance to respondent No.2 on 21.04.2010 and further a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, on 08.05.2010. Therefore, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under the agreement of sale. 7. The petitioner has got some semblance of right because his case is that the suit filed by respondent No.1 against his son is a conclusive one so as to defeat the rights of the third party purchaser i.e., the petitioner, who filed the present application. No doubt, no relief can be granted against a third party if he comes on record as defendant, but at the same time, if the presence of the proposed party is not there in the suit, then his rights would be affected and ultimately if the suit is decreed, the rights under the agreement of sale, dated 21.04.2010, would be defeated. The proposed party can adduce necessary evidence to show that suit is a collusive one. The proposed party has to safeguard his interest in the property. If the suit is decreed in the absence of proposed party, the agreement of sale becomes inexecutable. Therefore, proposed party has got every right to put forward his defence so that multiplicity of proceedings can be avoided. Therefore, to safeguard his right, the petitioner can come on record. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set a side. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 27.12.2010, in I.A.No.688 of 2010 in I.A.No.26 of 2010 in O.S.No.47 of 2010, on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur and the I.A.No.26 of 2010 filed by the petitioner is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J APRIL 01, 2011 YVL [1] AIR 1997 Bombay 296