( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order in I. A. No. 188 of 1982 in O. S. No. 173/82 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The lower Court dismissed the said application filed by the petitioners for impleading them as defendants in O. S. No. 175 of 1982.

( 2 ) THERE are five petitioners in I. A. No. 188/82. The first respondent is a Co-operative Housing Society and is the plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 10 are the defendants in suit. The 1st respondent filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 5-11-1975 against the 1st defendant and his legal representatives. The 5th defendant who is the legal representative of the 1st defendant filed a written statement contending that originally there were certain agreements of sale executed on 2-10-1974 and 5-1-1975 but that there was no subsequent agreement of sale as alleged by the plaintiff on 5-11-1975. We are not concerned with the defence of the 1st defendant or his legal representatives in this revision. It is, however, necessary to note that in paragraph 8 of the written statement filed by the 5th defendant it was stated that out of the land belonging to the 1st defendant there were certain other earlier agreements of sale in respect of five plots comprising an area of 310 square yards of land in favour of M/s. B. Bala Narasimha, Mohd. Ibrahim, B. Chukkaiah, Mohd. Shareef and Ramu Ladhu and that as such the said persons are necessary parties to the suit. It may be noted that the present I. A. No. 188/82 was filed by Bala Narasimha, Mohd. Ibrahim, B. Chukkaiah, Mohd. Sareef and Ramu Ladhu. In the application filed by them under O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. the petitioners stated that they purchased various extents of land from the deceased 1st defendant earlier and they gave details of these lands. They also stated that they are in possession of various extents of land covered by the suit pursuant to agreements dated 19-11-1971 etc.

( 3 ) IT is significant to note that in the suit the plaintiff society claimed only a decree for specific performance against its vendor the 1st defendant. No other consequential relief was claimed in the suit either for injunction or for possession of the property covered by agreement.

( 4 ) THE Court below thought that inasmuch as the plaintiff in the suit claimed only a decree for specific performance as against the 1st defendant and his legal representatives there was no question of the decree affecting the rights of the petitioners herein who wanted to get themselves impleaded in the suit. The trial Court thought that even fi there was a decree in ahte suit for specific performance of the agreement pleaded by the plaintiff there was no question of dispossessing the petitioners or affecting their rights. It was of the further view that in case the petitioners are impleaded in the suit the suit would be converted into one where the genuineness of the agreements set up by the petitioners has also to be gone into and would therefore enlarge the scope of the suit. It therefore dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Order 1, Rule 10. C. P. C.

( 5 ) IN this revision it is contended by Shri N. V. Ranganadham, the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Khaja Abdul v. Mahabub Saheb, AIR 1979 Andh Pra 152 the dispute raised by the petitioners was with reference to the same property which was the subject-matter of the suit between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and that therefore the petitioners should have been impleaded as defendants in the suit. "all questions in controversy in the suit"mean, according to the Division Bench Judgment, all questions involved in relation to the subject-matter of the suit and not necessarily those between the original parties to the suit.

( 6 ) ON the other hand Shri. A. Venkatramana, the learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff contends that the lower Court has rightly followed the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document