These three Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 11.03.2013 passed in I.A.Nos.23, 24 & 25 of 2011 in I.A.No.3728/2002 in O.S.No.810/2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

I have heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Namavarapu Rajeswarao, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

These three revision petitions are between the same parties and common questions of law and fact would arise for consideration in these three revision petitions and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs. Respondents Nos.2 to 10 are the defendants. The 1st respondent is the proposed party. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.810/2002 against the respondents Nos.2 to 10 for partition of the suit schedule properties, situated at Ursu village in Warangal District. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 29.08.2002. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application for passing of final decree in I.A.No.3728/2002. While the final decree proceedings were pending, the 1st respondent/proposed party in the three revision petitions filed I.A.Nos.23, 24 & 25 of 2011 under Order I Rule-10 CPC to implead them as parties to the final decree proceedings. It is contended by proposed parties that the plaintiffs offered to sell part of the scheduled mentioned property to them, entered into agreements of sale on 18.03.2005 and 24.03.2005, received agreed sale consideration, delivered vacant possession to them, and handed over pattedar passbooks and title deeds issued by the revenue authorities and undertook to execute a regular sale deed as and when demanded. According to the proposed parties, the plaintiffs subsequently with a view to defeat their rights, filed the aforesaid suit O.S.No.810/2002 for partition against the defendants Tippani Yadagiri and others in respect of the same properties and other properties, against which the plaintiffs entered into agreements of sale with the proposed parties, and obtained an ex parte decree collusively. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed applications for passing of final decree to allot the shares by metes and bounds. The grievance of the proposed parties is that without their presence, if the final decree proceedings are continued and concluded, their rights under the agreements of sale would be jeopardized, therefore, they are not only proper parties to the final decree proceedings but also necessary parties and without their presence, there cannot be any complete and effective adjudication in the final decree proceedings.

The impleadment petitions were opposed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the alleged agreements of sale are fabricated documents, they never executed any such agreements in favour of the proposed parties, the proposed parties filed suits seeking specific performance of the alleged agreements of sale, they have to work out their remedies in the said suits, but they cannot claim to be added in the final decree proceedings.

Repealing the contentions urged by the plaintiffs, the learned Court below allowed the impleadment petitions filed under Order I Rule-10 CPC by the proposed parties.

The learned Court below for allowing the applications filed by the proposed parties, took into consideration the fact that the decree passed is an ex parte decree, the parties can be added at any stage of the proceedings, since the 1st respondent/proposed party in all three revision petitions have interest in the subject matter of the final decree proceedings, they are necessary parties for the final decree proceedings.

The question to be determined in these revision petitions is whether the order passed by the learned Court below in allowing the impleadment petitions is in accordance with law and can be sustained?

Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submits that the 1st respondent/p