THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2612 OF 2011 12.08.2011 Between: M/s.Appanna Venkata Subba Rao …Petitioner AND Badam Suryanarayana And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2612 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner statedly a salt manufacturing company obtained lease in respect of Acs.57.00 of land from respondents 1 to 22. Alleging that they are trying to act contrary to the registered lease document, the petitioner instituted O.S.No.1557 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for perpetual injunction. The suit is pending. In 2009, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1357 of 2009 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to implead respondents 23 to 36. The petitioner alleged that respondents 1 to 22 sold the land to respondents 23 to 36 and therefore, they are proper and necessary parties. The application was opposed by the proposed respondents denying that they are not liable to the suit claim and that the suit relief has become infructuous since the transactions are validly entered and completed long back. In this revision, the counsel would submit that as respondents 23 to 36 became owners by reason of alienation by respondents 1 to 22, they would be proper and necessary parties to the suit for injunction. This Court is afraid the submission is misconceived. Admittedly the suit was instituted for an injunction restraining respondents 1 to 22 from entering into any agreement contrary to the terms and conditions of lease agreement dated 21.09.1949. There is no dispute that they entered into sale transactions in August, 2008. When the main relief in the suit is restraining the original defendants from entering into any agreement with third parties and the third parties plead that such agreements are already entered into, no purpose would be served by impleading respondents 23 to 36. As rightly observed by the Court below, it is always open to the petitioner to file a separate suit if there is any legal injury occasioned by the breach of the suit agreement, if such agreement is valid. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 12.08.2011 Pln