IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2546 of 2010 Between: P. Vittal .. Petitioner AND A. Pentaiah and another .. Respondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15-04-2010 in I.A. No.475 of 2009 in O.S. No.89 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. K. Lalitha, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri K. Surender, Advocate for the 1st respondent/plaintiff, the Court made the following ORDER: The order of the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy dismissing I.A. No.475 of 2009 in O.S. No.89 of 2006 on 15-04-2010 led the unsuccessful third party to file the present revision. The revision petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant in the suit in respect of the suit property on 04-08-2005 and to have obtained a decree for specific performance in O.S. No.80 of 2007, in execution of which decree, he obtained a registered sale deed also in his favour. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed this suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 31-08-2005 and he also obtained ex parte judgment and decree in O.S. No.86 of 2008 for setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S. No.80 of 2007 in favour of the revision petitioner and also cancelling the registered sale deed in his favour. The revision petitioner claimed to have filed a petition to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree in O.S. No.86 of 2008 and therefore, desired to be impleaded in this suit for specific performance. The plaintiff/1st respondent opposed the request on the ground that after the decree in O.S. No.86 of 2008 setting aside the decree in O.S. No.80 of 2007, the present revision petition is not maintainable and the revision petitioner has no locus standi to come on record as a necessary or proper party. The trial Court in the impugned order opined that the remedy of the revision petitioner is only to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No.86 of 2008, in which he was declared by a competent civil Court to be having no right in the suit property. In consequence, his request to be impleaded herein cannot be considered and he is not a necessary party to the suit. The revision petitioner contends herein that the original defendant in the suit is no longer showing any interest in contesting the claim of the 1st respondent, as he already received the money under the agreement of sale and is not in possession of the property in question. The decree in O.S. No.86 of 2008 should have been noted to be an ex parte decree, to set aside which, a petition is pending before the trial Court and as a necessary party, he shall be impleaded. Heard Smt. K. Lalitha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Surender, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff. Any notice to the 2nd respondent is not awaited, as his rights and interests are no way affected by the subject matter of the revision petition. Smt. K. Lalitha relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others[1], wherein the Apex Court has laid down that a purchaser of the contracted property from the vendor will be a necessary party to a suit for specific performance, as he would be affected, if he had purchased the property with or without notice of the contract in the suit for specific performance. The Apex Court pointed out that the scope of the suit for specific performance should not be enlarged and it should not be converted into a suit for title by impleading a party and only those persons are necessary parties in the absence of whom any decree cannot be passed and in whom there was a right to some relief against some other party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings. A proper party is one whose presence may be necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate all the questions involved in the suit, though such person is not interested in the relief claimed in the suit. While the principles laid down by the Apex Court are unexceptionable, the question involved in the present revision petition is to be examined from a different angle on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The revision petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement of sale on 04-08-2005 with the defendant in this suit in respect of the same property and to have obtained a decree for specific performance in O.S. No.80 of 2007 on the strength of that agreement of sale. That decree for specific performance is also claimed to have been executed and fructified in obtaining a registered sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner. The said allegations are not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that the plaintiff herein filed O.S. No.86 of 2008 against both the revision petitioner and the defendant herein for cancellation of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.80 of 2007 and also to declare the consequential registered sale deed to be null and void. That suit was admittedly decreed on 24-06-2009 and whether it is an ex parte or contested decree, it remains an enforceable decree against the revision petitioner and the defendant in the suit and here again, the revision petitioner seeks to agitate his rights under the same agreement of sale in this suit for specific performance between the plaintiff and the defendant. If between the same parties, the judgment and decree in O.S. No.86 of 2008 are still in force concerning the same subject matter, the revision petitioner cannot be considered, as of now, to be a necessary or proper party for determination of this suit for specific performance, when any rights he can claim under the agreement of sale, dated 04-08-2005 stand negatived as of now. Smt. K. Lalitha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner claims that the revision petitioner had taken steps to have the ex parte judgment and decree in O.S. No.86 of 2008 set aside and relevant petitions are still pending before the concerned Court. If it were true that such petitions are under consideration of the competent Court and there is likelihood of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.86 of 2008 being set aside if the petitions are allowed, then it may be open to the revision petitioner to approach the trial Court again with a request to come on record in this suit to protect his interests in this suit and O.S. No.86 of 2008 also. But till such a contingency arises, his request cannot be considered. As such, the conclusion of the trial Court that the petitioner is not a necessary party at this stage cannot be interfered with, while liberty should be given to the revision petitioner to renew his request, if the judgment and decree in O.S. No.86 of 2008 cease to be in operation for any reason at a subsequent point of time during the pendency of this suit. Therefore, the order, dated 15-04-2010 in I.A. No.475 of 2009 in O.S. No.89 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy is not interfered with. But the petitioner therein is at liberty to approach the trial Court renewing his request to be impleaded as a party to this suit in the event of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.86 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Judge’s Court, Medak at Sangareddy, dated 24-06-2009 being set aside in any proceedings initiated by the revision petitioner in this regard and the trial Court shall consider such request on its own merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order under revision and this order. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 07-07-2010 Svv [1] 2005 (4) SCJ 196