THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 936 of 2011 Order: This revision is directed against the order dated 07.03.2011 passed in CMA (SR) No.2446 of 2011 by the Principal District Judge, at L.B. Nagar, R.R. District. The petitioners case is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of Ac.1-03 gts., of land, having purchased under different sale deeds. Petitioner No.1 claims to have purchased Ac.1-01 gts., of land situated in Sy.No.698 of Shamshabad village and Mandal, R.R. District, from various vendors as mentioned below. Sl No Sy.No. Name of the Vendor Village Document No. Extent 1 698 C . Yesuratnam & others Shamshabad 1689/06, dt.06.02.2006 0-09 gts 2 698 Devadanam & others Shamshabad 2017/06, dt.18.02.2006 0-11 gts 3 698 Laxmamma and others Shamshabad 3143/06, dt.06.02.2006 0-09 gts 4 698 S m t . Sushila and others Shamshabad 4873/06, dt.04.04.2006 0-06 gts 5 698 Venkatesham Shamshabad 5523/06, dt.18.04.2006 0-06 gts Petitioner No.2 claims to have purchased 0-02 gts., of land situated in Sy.No.698 of Shamshabad village and Mandal, R.R. District from Chinnagundu Yellamma, vide document No.7714 of 2006, dated 13.06.2006. It is also their case that their vendors secured title by virtue of occupancy rights certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional officer, Chevella division, vide proceedings No.479/2000, dated 28.02.2002 under the provisions of Section 4 read with Section 10 of the A.P. (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. It is also their case that the mutation proceedings were endorsed to their vendors and consequently to them. It is also their case that they obtained permission from the Grampanchayat, Shamshabad, vide proceedings No.75/2008-09, dated 23.05.2008 and 76/2008-09, dated 23.05.2008 for construction of compound wall and also for construction of G+2 floor building. It is also their case that the respondents herein filed a suit in O.S. No.2554 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District, mainly contending that originally one Gandu Pochaiah, Pothiganti Chinnaiah and Gandu Jangaiah were the original pattadars and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.1-04 gts., in Survey No.698 of Shamshabad village and Mandal, R.R. District and that after the demise of original pattedars their legal heirs entered into an agreement of sale on 10.06.2000 to sell the above said property in favour of Nazeerunnisa and Khaja Sohail Ahmed, the vendors of the respondents herein, by receiving the advance sale consideration and later as they failed to execute sale deed in favour of Nazeerunnisa and Khaja Sohail Ahmed therefore they have filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against Pedda Gandu Ushaiah, Pothiganti Ratnam China Gandu Saily and R. Prabhaker in O.S. No.270 of 2006, and the said suit was decreed on 19.02.2008 and consequently the vendors of the respondents herein obtained a registered sale deed through the process of the Court, vide document No.346 of 2009, dated 04.02.2009 and consequently rectification deeds, vide document Nos.877 of 2009, dated 16.03.2009 and 1120 of 2009, dated 15.04.2009 were obtained, and from them the respondents 1 and 2 herein have obtained sale deeds, vide document Nos.1653 of 2009 and 1652 of 2009, dated 05.06.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the vendors of the petitioners are the real owners of the property and that they have absolute interest in the suit schedule properties and that the vendors of the respondents had obtained fraudulent ex parte decree. Admittedly, respondents 1 and 2 have filed a suit against the third respondent herein alone for perpetual injunction. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the parties to the said suit. The respondents have obtained interim injunction order against the third respondent in IA No.2950 of 2009 in O.S. No. 2554 of 2009 and also police protection order in I.A. No.54 of 2010 in I.A. No.2950 of 2009 in O.S. No.2554 of 2009. Challenging the orders passed in IA No.2950 of 2009 in O.S. No. 2554 of 2009, the petitioners herein preferred CMA (SR) No.2446 of 2011. The learned District Judge, holding that as the petitioners are not the parties to the suit, they ought to have filed an application to implead themselves as parties to the suit and that they can also file an application to set aside the injunction order, if at all they are affected and that the third party aggrieved by the interlocutory order cannot file an appeal, refused to grant leave to present the CMA. A perusal of the record would show that the petitioners are not the parties to the suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against respondent No.3 herein. When they are not parties to the suit, it is clear that they are not bound by the interim orders passed against the third respondent. However, the apprehension of the petitioners herein is that if they are impleaded as parties to the suit they will be bound by the injunction orders passed against the third respondent and also by the order passed by the lower Court granting police aid and that they may be dispossessed from the suit schedule property in which they are in peaceful possession. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners may file an application to implead themselves as parties to the suit in O.S. No. 2554 of 2009 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein against the third respondent and put forth all their pleas in the said suit. Similarly, they can file an application to modify or vacate the injunction orders granted in I.A. No.2950 of 2009 and also the orders passed in I.A. No.54 of 2010 and the lower Court after hearing both the parties may pass appropriate orders and it is made clear that till such time, the orders passed against third respondent will not bind the petitioners, since they are not parties to those orders on the date of passing of such orders. Subject to the above observations, the CRP is dismissed at the admission stage itself. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 18.03.2011 Nsr