1. This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 28.12.2011 passed in I.A.No.319 of 2010 in O.S.No.29 of 2007 on the file of II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Parvathipuram, wherein and whereby the petition filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC was dismissed.

2. To avoid confusion, the parties will hereinafter be referred as they are arrayed before the trial court.

3. The factual matrix leading to filing of the civil revision petition is as follows:

The first respondent is the younger son of Late Tekumalla Ramarao. The second respondent is wife and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the legal representatives of Late Srinivasa Rao, who is the elder son of Late Rama Rao. Late Rama Rao was the inamdar of an extent of about Acs.29.00 in new survey Nos.8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 24 of Dattivenkatapuram village. The petitioners and their predecessors were inducted, by Late Rama Rao, into the land admeasuring Acs.18.00 covered by survey Nos.5, 6, 8 and 18 as tenants about 70 years ago, and they continued as tenants up to 1986 and thereafter the petitioners became absolute owners over the share of first respondent and his sisters. The petitioners also became absolute owners in respect of land belongs to respondent Nos.2 to 4 by virtue of dismissal of ATC Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of 1984 against the petitioners and their predecessors. In the year 2004, rumours spread in the village that respondent Nos.3 and 4 being unable to have access to the lands in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, colluding with respondent Nos.5 to 8, executed sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8, who attempted to trespass into the lands including the other lands in possession of the first respondent. The petitioners did not allow them to enter into the village. Recently, the petitioners came to know through B.Surya Rao, Advocate that the first respondent filed civil suit against other respondents. It appears that respondent Nos.3 and 4 in collusion with first respondent filed O.S. No.29 of 2007. The petitioners are necessary parties to decide the questions of fact and law involved in the suit. The first respondent intentionally and willfully did not implead the petitioners as parties to the suit. Hence, the present petition is filed to implead the petitioners as defendants in O.S.No.29 of 2007 to adjudicate the questions completely and effectually.

4. The first respondent filed counter admitting dismissal of ATC Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of 1984 in view of the compromise effected therein. It is contended that after dismissal of ATCs, the petitioners did not come forward to obtain registered sale deed by paying balance sale consideration as per the terms of compromise recorded in ATCs, though he waited up to first week of June, 1988. This respondent got issued legal notice on 06.6.1988 calling upon the petitioners to pay the balance sale consideration on or before 10.7.1988 and obtain sale deed failing which the sale agreement dated 03.1.1986 embodied as compromise in the ATCs shall be deemed to be cancelled. The petitioners having received the legal notice under the acknowledgements kept quiet. This respondent took vacant possession of the land on 11.7.1988 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as well as major extent of land in survey Nos.5, 6, 8 and 18. The petitioners got issued legal notice on 12.7.1992 with all false allegations as if they were in possession and enjoyment of the land. This respondent got issued reply notice to the petitioners. This respondent has given part of the land to his daughters and their names were also mutated in the revenue records. By suppressing all these facts, the petitioners filed the present petition at the behest of respondent Nos.5 to 8 and 11. The petitioners have no locus standi to file this petition claiming independent title in respect of schedule property when this respondent filed present suit for declaration