AINALA KUMAR Vs. PULAKANTI NARSI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 filed the suit seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents 4 to 6 from interfering with their possession over the plaint schedule property.

(2.) WHILE the suit is pending, revision petitioners alleging that they entered into an agreement to purchase the plaint schedule property from respondents 1 to 3 with a power of attorney, filed a petition to implead themselves as parties to the suit, which was dismissed by the order under revision on the ground that the suit being one for injunction simplicitor question of impleading a party to the suit does not arise, observing that if the revision petitioners have any grievance against respondents 1 to 3, they can seek their remedy by filing a suit for declaration of their title and for other reliefs. Hence, this revision.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that in view of the ratio in B. BASHEER KHAN V. SYED SHAREEF, 2006 3 ALD 651 and kesari GOUTHAM REDDY V. VELPULA JOHN VICTOR MACAULAY, 2007 5 ALD 656, the trial court was in error in dismissing the petition.