( 1 ) THIS Revision is filed against the order in I. A. No. 712/89 in A. S. No. 19/1988 on the file of the first Addl. District Judge, Warangal. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the petitioners herein.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit O. S. No. 64/85 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, jangaon for partition of the suit schedule properties consisting of survey numbers 461/4 and 461/5. Against the preliminary decree in O. S. No. 64/85, a. S. No. 19/88 was filed in the First Addl. District Court, Warangal. Pending disposal of the appeal, I. A. No. 712/89 was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. by the first respondent in the C. R. P. requesting the Court to implead him as a party to the suit for partition.

( 3 ) THE first respondent was appointed as Receiver-Commissioner by the chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I. A. No. 1874/82 in O. S. No. 18/63. O. S. No. 18/63 was filed by one Mir Abbas Hyder Kazmi against Smt. Saleha fatima for the administration of the Estate belonging to Mir Abbas Hyder kazmi. In the suit one Sri Ahamed Sharif, Advocate, Jangaon was appointed as receiver-Commissioner for administration of the suit schedule properties. He took possession of the suit schedule properties from the Revenue authorities including suit schedule property in O. S. No. 64/85 on the file of the Sub-Judge, janagaon. On the death of the original Receiver namely Sri Ahamed Sheriff the present first respondent was appointed as Receiver in the year 1983. Respondents 2 to 20 filed the suit for partition in O. S. No. 64/85 for partition of land in survey number 461/4 and 461/5 which were the subject matter of suit O. S. No. 18/63. The possession of the said survey numbers was handedover to sri Ahmed Sheriff, the Receiver in file No. C3/2915/63 by the Revenue authorities. Since these two survey numbers were the subject matter of O. S. No. 18/63 in respect of which Smt. Sahela Fatima was claiming title and ownership of the properties, the receiver Commissioner filed the petition to implead him contending that he is a necessary party and since the suit was filed without impleading him when he came to know about the passing of the preliminary decree in favour of respondents 2 to 20, he filed I. A. No. 712/89 in a. S. No. 19/88. The learned Judge relying on a judgment of this Court in CRP no. 2954/88 which arose out of an order passed in I. A. No. 166/88 in O. P. No. 29/87 on the file of Sub-Court, Jangaon wherein the Receiver has been impleaded as a party to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, allowed the I. A. and observed that the Receiver is a necessary party. Aggrieved by the orders of the First Addl. District Judge, Warangal, the present C. R. P. is filed by the plaintiffs.

( 4 ) THE argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the preliminary decree has already been passed by the Sub-Judge, Jangaon against which the appeal is filed in the first Adll. District Court, Warangal. If the first respondent is impleaded as a party it would not only change the nature of the suit but it will also affect the rights of the petitioners in the Revision petition. The whole suit is to be retried once again and therefore, the first Addl. District Judge ought not to have impleaded the 1st respondent as a party to the suit. Respondents 2 to 20 in the I. A. filed suit for partition of survey numbers 461/4 and 461/5 claiming that their predecessors in title purchased the property and they are in possession of the same over a period of 40 years and therefore, they are entitled for partition of these two items, whereas, the first respondent claims that these two items of property were the subject matter of the earlier suit O. S. No. 18/63 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad in which the Receiver was appointed who had taken possession of these two items of properties and the properties are in possession and administration of the Receiver. If the Commissioner-Receiver is impleaded the matter is t