ORDER :

These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of similar orders passed by learned III Additional District Judge, Nandyal, in interlocutory applications filed by proposed parties under Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘CPC’) on the same day in different similar suits. Since the question of law and issues, which arise to be dealt with in all these Civil Revision Petitions is similar and the matters are distinct only in their respective facts and events, all these revision petitions are being disposed of by common order.

2. All these Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders passed by learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool, at Nandyal, in interlocutory applications filed in ten original suits by different parties, dated 20.10.2017 wherein learned trial Judge allowed the petitions filed by proposed parties under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and permitted them to come on record as defendants in the suits.

3. For better understanding of the case, following tabler form is extracted to show against which order in the original suit, which revision petition has been preferred and the same reads as under:

4. The case of proposed defendants before the trial Court in brief is that they are third parties and they also filed suit against second respondent/D1 for recovery of their mortgage debt dated 10.03.2008 wherein they added all the subsequent mortgagees. They submit that the first respondents/plaintiffs, who are revision petitioners herein, filed suits, wherein purposefully avoided to implead them as defendants. It is also the contention of proposed parties that they being subsequent mortgagees are necessary parties to the suit filed by first respondents/plaintiffs as per Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC. They have stated that R2/D1 mortgaged entire 49 cents of land to them, whereas portion of land alone is mortgaged to first respondents/plaintiffs though it is prior mortgage. They pray to implead them as defendants in the suits being subsequent mortgagees. The petitioners/plaintiffs/revision petitioners filed counters denying averments in the affidavits of proposed parties. It is the contention of revision petitioners/first respondents/plaintiffs that proposed parties being subsequent mortgagees are not necessary parties to the suit as property under mortgage was already sold by the bank and thereafter, deposited balance of sale consideration amount after appropriating the debt due to them. They also submit that proposed parties filed writ petition and got orders and they intended to implead as parties to the suit though their right to redemption extinguished as there is no property available. It is the contention of revision petitioners/first respondents/plaintiffs in the suits that the proposed parties are neither necessary nor proper parties. They pray to dismiss the revision petitions.

5. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge allowed the petitions filed by the propos