The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.4017 of 2011 Date: 30.09.2011 Between: Aare Rukmini ..... Petitioner AND 1.Bathula Bhavani and 2 others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Raghu Counsel for the respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 10-08-2011, in IA.No.60 of 2008 in OS.No.177 of 2007, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS.No.177 of 2007, filed against respondent Nos.2 and 3, for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Respondent No.1, who is the daughter of respondent Nos.2 and 3, filed IA.No.60 of 2008, seeking her impleadment as defendant No.3 in the suit, by setting up a registered gift deed in her favour, stated to have been executed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Court below, on considering the rival pleas, allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. At the hearing, Sri V.Raghu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.1 is basing her claim on the purported gift deed, executed on the very day on which the petitioner has got the legal notice, served on respondent Nos.2 and 3, demanding specific performance of the agreement of sale, and therefore, there are no bona fides on her part in claiming interest and title over the suit schedule property. Now, the only issue that needs consideration is, whether respondent No.1 is a necessary or proper party to the civil suit. Irrespective of the merits of the plea of respondent No.1 that she has subsisting interest in the suit schedule property, the undisputed fact remains that a gift deed in respect thereof was executed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in favour of respondent No.1. Whether the said gift deed is intended to deny specific performance of the agreement of sale to the petitioner or not needs to be examined by the Court below in the suit. As rightly observed by the Court below, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is appropriate that respondent No.1 is impleaded in the suit so that her purported interests in the suit schedule property can also be adjudicated and this would, in one manner, benefit the petitioner also as the further litigation from respondent No.1 can be obviated. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Court below. This order, however, may not be understood that, by allowing impleadment of respondent No.1, this Court and the Court below have accepted her case on merits. For the above-mentioned reasons, the CRP is dismissed. As a sequel to disposal of the CRP, CRPMP.No.5731 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 30th September, 2011 LUR