LAWS(APH)-1993-4-76

ADAPA VENKATESWRA RAO Vs. MOHAMMAD SULEMAN

Decided On April 29, 1993
ADAPA VENKATESWRA RAO Appellant
V/S
MOHAMMAD SULEMAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the third parties who are questioning the order refusing to implead them as defendant Nos. 6 & 7 in O.S. No. 162/82 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court. Vijayawada.

(2.) The first respondent is (sic) (has?) filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement against the defendant Nos. 1 to 5. Defendant Nos. 4 & 5 who are the original owners of the suit property, sold the same to the petitioners under two separate sale deeds dated 2-11-1988 and 2-2-1989. As the defendant Nos. 4 & 5 have sold away their property, they lost interest in the suit proceedings and if they do not prosecute the suit diligently, the petitioners who purchased the property, would suffer serious hardship. Therefore; they filed I.A. 2361/89 under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead them as defendant Nos. 6 & 7 on the ground that they are proper and necessary parties to the suit, being the subsequent purchasers. The said application was dismissed by the lower Court holding that they are not proper and necessary parties to the suit and their remedy is to work out their rights by way of a separate suit. Challenging the said order, this revision petition is filed.

(3.) Sri T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that even for a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. as well as Section 151 C.P.C. would apply. The learned Counsel relied upon a division Bench Decision of this court, reported in K. A. Khader v. Mahabub Saheb, 1979 (1) APLJ (HC) 93 : (AIR 1979 AP 132). It is suit for declaration, where, third party wanted to come on record on the ground that his great grand-father was granted the plaint schedule land by Gadwal Samsthan for the purpose of service of arranging peers in Gadwal. The plaintiffs in that suit claimed to be the owners of the land on the ground that it is service inam of the mosque. Considering the rival contentions, the Court observed as follows at page 155 (of AIR) :--