LEKKALA CHINA MASTHAN NAIDU Vs. MEDA SARVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed, questioning the order dated 31.7.2009 made in LA.No.119 of 2009 in O.S.No.234 of 2008, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, Nellore District, whereunder the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking to add the first respondent as party defendant to the suit, was allowed.

(2.) Petitioners are plaintiffs and second respondent is defendant in the suit OS No.234 of 2008. First respondent is third party to the suit. Petitioners laid the above suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 2.8.1989 purported to have been executed by second respondent. The said suit is pending and during the pendency of suit, first respondent filed the present I.A, under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to add her as defendant to the suit. Petitioners resisted the same. After a detailed consideration of the arguments on both sides and other material made available on record, the Court below, by impugned order allowed the application as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP is filed,

(3.) It is the contention of the first respondent that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, which were originally belongs to Guntamadugu Subba Raju S/o Venkata Raju and his sons and she purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 20.9.2008 and took possession of the same. Ever since the date of purchase, she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The petitioners and second respondent are no way concerned with the suit schedule properties. It is further stated that previously petitioners 2 and 3 filed a suit against her husband; Guntamadugu Subba Raju and others for permanent injunction in OS No.69 of 2002 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kota, which is still pending. According to first respondent, when the said suit is pending, petitioners again filed the present suit for specific performance against respondent No.2, who is unconnected to the proceedings and got himself set ex parte only to divert the circumstances. This fact came to the knowledge of the first respondent recently. Further, on 16.10.2008 second respondent executed a consent letter in favour of vendor of first respondent relinquishing his right.