PAMUJULA NARAYANA Vs. RAMCHANDRUNI MALAKONDAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of the plaint schedule property (suit property) executed by the first respondent in his capacity as the holder of an earlier agreement of sale in respect of the suit property belonging to Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao and also in the capacity as the General Power of Attorney of Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao, who is said to have died even prior to the filing of the suit. It is to be noted that the plaint is silent about Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao being the owner of the suit property and reads as if first respondent himself is the owner of the suit property. In view of the proposals to acquire the plaint schedule land for construction of a thermal power station, second respondent also is made a party to the suit.

(2.) After filing of the suit revision petitioner filed I.A. No.274 of 1995 seeking leave of the Court to implead the daughter of Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao (3rd respondent) as a defendant in the suit in her capacity as the legal representative of Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao. The said petition was dismissed, as per the order dated 3-9-2001, inter alia on the ground that there is no allegation in the plaint about the suit property being the property of Seshagiri Rao. Thereafter, revision petitioner filed LA. No.160 of 2002 seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint by introducing a paragraph in the plaint stating that first respondent as General Power of Attorney and as the holder of a possessory agreement of sale in respect of the suit property from Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao entering into sale agreement with him, which was allowed inspite of opposition by the first respondent. Thereafter, revision petitioner again filed I.A. No.159 of 2002 to implead the third respondent as third defendant in the suit, which was dismissed by the order under revision. Hence this revision.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since LA. No.274 of 1995 filed to implead the 3rd respondent as 3rd defendant was dismissed mainly on the ground that the plaint not disclosing the ownership of Seshagiri Rao over the suit property. When that omission is supplied by seeking amendment of the plaint, the Court below ought to have allowed the petition to implead the third respondent as a party to the suit, and also was in error in dismissing the petition on the ground that the order in LA. No.274 of 1995 operates as res judicata.