THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2561 of 2009 DATED:28.06.2011 BETWEEN: VEDICHERLA SREENADHA REDDY. …PETITIONER AND BATHINA SUBBA REDDY & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2561 OF 2009 ORDER: The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner against the order passed in I.A.No:1004 of 2006 in O.S.No:356 of 2006 on 5.2.2009 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Pottisreeramulu, Nellore. The petitioner herein is the third party to the suit proceedings. He filed the application in I.A.No:1004 of 2006 under order 1 Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C read with section 151 C.P.C seeking to implead him as 5th defendant in O.S.356 of 2006. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition that the plaint schedule property and some other property originally belonged to the 2nd respondent and he agreed to sell the same to him for a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs and executed a sale deed in his favour on 24.1.2005. The 2nd respondent received a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs towards the sale consideration by way of cheque bearing No:017761 on the Bank of State Bank of Hyderabad, Vijayamahal Centre dated 20.1.2005 and he received another sum of Rs.7.00 lakhs on 24.1.2005, which is the date of execution of the sale deed. Thus the 2nd respondent received the entire sale consideration of Rs.10.00 lakhs on 24.1.2005 and thereafter the sale deed was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, Nellore. It is further averred that he also paid Rs.1,34,200/- by way of challan in the State Bank of India, Fathekhanpet, Nellore in the account of the Sub Registrar, Nellore towards the stamp duty and registration charges etc. The Join Sub Registrar, Nellore refused to register the above said document and issued letter to that effect on 24.1.2005 to the 2nd respondent. In the said letter, it is stated that the said document presented for registration is effecting survey No:663/1 of Nellore Bit-I which is pending before this Court and the document cannot be accepted for registration on the ground that there are no such order vacating the interim order passed in W.P.No:19436 of 2004 and in terms of the Government orders in G.O.Ms.No:620, Revenue (Registration-I), Department, dated 28.9.2002. It is further averred that after execution of the sale deed in his favour, the 2nd respondent sold some portion of the property to respondents-3 and 4 and others. Thereupon he filed O.S.No:354 of 2006 on the file of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore against respondents-2, 3 and 4 and others for specific performance of the sale deed dated 24.1.2005 executed by the 2nd respondent. Sri Saibaba Avenue Development Society represented by its President Bijjam Krishna Reddy filed O.S.No:2 of 2005 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Nellore against respondents-1 and 2 and originally contested the said suit and finally respondents-1 and 2 colluded with the above society and compromised the matter and as a result of the same, a compromise decree was passed on 21.7.2006 and the said compromise decree is not binding on him. Since he has already purchased Ac.2.00 of land including the plaint schedule property from the 2nd respondent under an agreement of sale dated 24.1.2005, he is a necessary and property party to the proceedings in O.S.No:356 of 2006. On the other hand, the 1st respondent-plaintiff filed a counter contending that the 2nd respondent has neither title nor any right to sell the schedule mentioned property to the petitioner. He does not aware of the filing of the suit in O.S.No:354 of 2006 by the petitioner seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.1.2005. It is true that Sri Saibaba Avenue Development Society filed a suit in O.S.No:2 of 2005 on the file of the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Nellore. But, it is not correct that respondents-1 and 2 colluded with the above society and compromised the matter. During the pendency of the said suit, the suit was not pressed against him and therefore, no compromise decree passed between him and the above said society. Apart from that, he is not a party to the alleged compromise decree. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot come on record as 5th defendant and the present petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings. The 2nd respondent filed the counter contending that the averment in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that he is the owner of the schedule property, is true. It is also true that the property was offered to be sold to the petitioner for Rs.10.00 lakhs and the petitioner issued cheques for Rs.3.00 lakhs and the same was encashed after the cheque being returned for insufficient funds several times. The petitioner has not paid the balance consideration of Rs.7.00 lakhs and as the sale deed could not be registered he stepped back from the transaction and he returned the amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the petitioner in the presence of the attestors to the unregistered sale deed and the petitioner did not return the sale deed to him on the pretext that the stamps are to be submitted for cancellation for refund of the amount of deposited for registration. Taking advantage of non return of the sale deed, the petitioner filed a false suit for specific performance, in order to gain wrongfully. The rights of the petitioner, if any can only be adjudicated only after resolving of the issue between the plaintiff and this respondent and therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party to the proceedings. The Court below having observed that since the contention of the 2nd respondent is that he has already returned the advance of consideration to the petitioner and he has stepped back from the said transaction, it is for the petitioner to prove his case in the suit filed by him and unless he obtains an order in his favour, he cannot claim any right in the subject property and at best, he may add the parties to the suit filed by him and that without having any right in the subject property, the petitioner has come forward with a plea to add him as a party to the suit and the petitioner is not a proper and necessary party to the present suit, dismissed the petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the schedule property in O.S.356 of 2006 on the file of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Pottisreeramulu, Nellore filed by him, is part and parcel of the schedule property in O.S.No:356 of 2006 filed by the 1st respondent. Since the 2nd respondent has failed to execute the sale deed, he filed the suit in O.S.No:354 of 2006 for specific performance of agreement of sale and the same is pending. Therefore, he has got interest in the property and he is a necessary party to the present suit in O.S.No:356 of 2006. But, the Court below has failed to consider all these aspects and hence, the order under revision suffers from irregularity and illegality. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent plaintiff that in connection with the schedule property, W.P.19436 of 2004 has been filed against the 2nd respondent and this Court issued a direction to the 2nd respondent not to alienate the schedule property. It is further submitted that contrary to the same, the 2nd respondent sold the property to various persons including the petitioner herein and therefore, it amounts to contempt of Courts Act. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has failed to show any prima facie right over the schedule property, he is not a proper and necessary party to the proceedings. Hence, the order under revision does not call for any interference by this Court. On the rival contentions, the fact that remains undisputed is that the petitioner who is a third party to the proceedings in O.S.No:356 of 2006 has filed a suit in O.S.No:354 of 2006 against the 2nd respondent and others. According to the petitioner, the schedule property in O.S.No:354 of 2006 is part and parcel of the schedule property in O.S.No:356 of 2006. Irrespective of the fact as to whether the petitioner is having prima facie right over the property in question or not, it is to be stated that in case he is added as a party in O.S.No:356 of 2006, no prejudice would be caused to the other side and apart from that, the issue involved in the suit can be adjudicated effectively by avoiding multiplicity of proceedings of this nature. The question as to whether the petitioner has got any interest in the property or not can only be adjudicated only after a full fledged trial but not merely basing on the pleadings and therefore, the approach of the Court below that without having any right in the subject property, the petitioner has come forward to implead him as a party to the present suit, suffers from illegality and irregularity. Hence, the order under revision is liable to be set aside. At this stage, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has taken steps to implead the necessary parties in the suit filed by him. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed setting aside the order passed in I.A.No:1004 of 2006 in O.S.No:356 of 2006, dated 5.2.2009. Consequently, I.A.No:1004 of 2006 is allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:28.06.2011. Gurc. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2561 OF 2009 DATED:28.06.2011