THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO CRP No.4029 of 2009 Oral Order: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 2.6.2009 passed in IA Nos.1014 and 1015 of 2008 in I.A.No.4606 of 2007 in O.S.No.2919 of 2007, by the Court of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad whereby the trial Court declined to implead the petitioners as parties to the suit. I.A.No.1014 of 2007 was filed by the revision petitioners herein seeking to implead them as defendants 4,5, and 6 in the suit O.S.No.2919 of 2007. I.A.No.1015 of 2007 was also filed by the petitioners seeking to implead them as respondents in I.A.No.4606 of 2007. By the impugned order the trial Court dismissed both the I.As. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed on the ground that they are the legal representatives of Smt. T. Satyamma, who purchased the suit schedule property from one N. Rangaiah, who is 2nd respondent herein and 1st defendant in the suit, in an extent of Ac.5.13 gts in Sy.No.1 of Gajularamaram, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide agreement of sale dated 7.8.1993 for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. Admittedly, Smt. Satyamma, who purchased the property under an agreement of sale also filed O.S.No.96 of 1995 before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Redy District and the said suit was decreed by the Court below vide judgment dated 20.12.2004. Challenging the said judgment and decree, N. Rangaiah, 2nd respondent herein filed A.S.No.63 of 2005 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy. Later the said appeal was got dismissed by the appellate Court on merits. Meanwhile, Smt. Satyamma who purchased the property under agreement of sale died on 22.4.2005. The petitioners being the legal heirs of said Satyamma wanted to come on record as respondents 4 to 6 in the suit as well as in the injunction petition filed by one Shaik Basheed in respect of the same property. The learned Senior Civil Judge by the impugned order dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for revision petitioners submitted that after suit filed by Smt. Satyamma was decreed, it was confirmed by the appellate Court and also by this Court. Thereafter the said Rangaiah got filed the suit O.S.No.2919 of 2007 through one Sk.Basheeed creating some agreement of sale in respect of the same subject land though the petitioners herein are proper parties being legal representatives of Smt. Satyamma, who purchased the property much earlier to that agreement as the same subject property is involved in the present suit also. It is an admitted fact that these petitioners being legal representatives of Satyamma were also got impleaded in the A.S.No.63 of 2005 preferred by N. Rangaiah on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy. It is also submitted that the said Rangaiah also filed Second Appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.63 of 2005 and this Court dismissed the Second Appeal also. From the above it follows that the subject matter of the same schedule property is involved in the later suit filed by the Sk.Basheed, the petitioners who are legal representatives of Satyamma who succeeded in the earlier litigation in all the Courts referred above in respect of the same schedule property are therefore proper and necessary parties to the present suit as well in the IA filed by Sk. Basheed for proper adjudication of the lis. Therefore, the learned Senior Civil Judge is not justified in dismissing the prayer of the petitioners. For the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside, the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the I.A. stands allowed. No costs. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO DT: 31-1-2014/kk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO CRP No.4029 of 2009 31-1-2014