ORDER :

Third parties to a suit, whose prayer for impleadment in the suit having been negatived by the trial Court, have come up with this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff, respondent No.2 herein is the defendant and respondent No.3 herein is one of the third parties out of the three. The order impugned is that of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram in I.A.No.953 of 2017 in O.S.No.30 of 2016 passed on 23.10.2018.

3. O.S.No.30 of 2016 is a suit for recovery of possession of lease hold property and for recovery of rent or damages. The property in dispute is described in the plaint schedule as house bearing Door No.2-148 situated in 145 square yards of site in Bhatnavilli Village of Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. In the plaint, it is alleged that the defendant owned this property and for a valid consideration of Rs.5,20,000/- and by executing a regular registered sale deed on 11.10.2010 it was sold in favour of the plaintiff and in the sale deed, a recital is there about warranty of title and possession of the property was also delivered to the plaintiff. Thereafter, on 18.07.2011 under a registered lease deed the plaintiff had let out the premises to the defendant for a period of one year on a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- payable by 18th of every month with a condition of payment of 18% interest in the event of default in payment of rent. Even after expiry of the lease period, the defendant remained as a tenant holding over and he was paying rents upto 17.07.2013 and committed default thereafter. Despite notice for payment of arrears of rent and for vacating the premises, there was no response and therefore, the suit. It is also mentioned that the defendant gave a false information to police on 15.12.2015 and the police searched the premises of the house of the plaintiff and they took away all the original documents. For the notice of the plaintiff, the defendant gave a reply with false allegations.

4. As against that, the sole defendant in the suit filed his written statement. He pleaded that the plaintiff obtained sale deed from him under force and threat of life. That the defendant had no right to execute sale deed and rent deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is stated that the disputed property originally belonged to the Government and on 05.11.1971 the Government issued a house site patta in favour of Smt. G.Gangayama. Initially, she constructed a thatched house and thereafter she constructed a RCC building in it. Thereafter, she died survived by four children including the defendant. With the consent of his siblings, this defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. That the plaintiff is indulging in private money lending business, the nephew of the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and it was in that context, the plaintiff obtained signatures on blank pronotes from the family members. Since the plaintiff obtained sale deed and lease deed under force, complaint to police was given and Crime No.472 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 384 and 508 read with 34 of I.P.C. was registered by Amalapuram Police. For all these reasons, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Issues in the suit were settled and trial commenced and evidence on both sides was recorded. While the suit was coming up for arguments, the siblings of the defendant, who are three in number, filed I.A.No.953 of 2017in O.S.No.30 of 2016 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The prayer in the said petition is extracted here:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioners-3rd parties pray to implead them as defendants 2 to 4 in the suit directing the plaintiff to make necessary consequential amendments to the plaint as suggested below and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of