HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4910 AND 5087 OF 2007 DATE:19-11-2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4910 OF 2007 BETWEEN Koli Purushotham Chowdary …Petitioner AND Avva Sita Mahalakshmi & others …Respondents CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5087 OF 2007 BETWEEN Koli Purushotham Chowdary …Petitioner AND Avva Sita Mahalakshmi & others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4910 AND 5087 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions arise out of same proceedings and are interrelated to each other, therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.65 of 1996 for specific performance of agreement of sale claiming that he purchased the land in R.S.No.705 to an extent of Ac.3.18 cents; R.S.No.704 to an extent of Ac.0.27 cents; R.S.No.703 to an extent of Ac.0.32 cents; R.S.No.705 to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents; and R.S.No.703/2 to an extent of Ac.2.57, in all, Ac.9.34 cents from the defendant Nos.1 and 2. Pending the suit, claiming that the second defendant executed a registered sale deed in favour of the third party-proposed party with regard to the property covered by R.S.No.703/1 to an extent of Ac.0.52 cents; and R.S.No.705/2 to an extent of Ac.4.27 cents out of Ac.6.18 cents, the plaintiff- petitioner herein filed I.A.No.917 of 2007 to implead the purchaser- proposed respondent as 8th defendant in the suit; and filed I.A.No.918 of 2007 to reopen the suit. The purchaser-proposed party filed a counter contending that the petitioner-plaintiff himself filed a memo into the Court on 21.3.2007 endorsing the sale of Ac.6.18 cents of land by the second defendant in R.S.No.703/1 and 705/2 and not pressing the suit against the second defendant. Therefore, acting upon the memo, dated 21.3.2007, the suit has been dismissed against the second defendant as not pressed. Once the suit itself is dismissed against the second defendant, the proposed party is not a necessary party. The lower Court dismissed both the I.As. by the impugned order, dated 23.10.2007. Hence, the present revisions. Once the suit against the second defendant for specific performance of agreement of sale has been dismissed as not pressed, there is no bar for him to transfer the property. In view of the same, the purchaser of the property from the second defendant is not a proper and necessary party to the suit. Further the property purchased by the proposed party is not the subject- matter of the suit for specific performance. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the lower Court in dismissing the I.As. do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The revisions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 19, 2010 Tsr.