ORDER :

1. The question that arises in this civil revision is whether a person holding an agreement for sale executed by the owner of the property is a necessary or proper party in a suit filed for declaration that a General Power of Attorney-cum-agreement for sale executed by the plaintiff in favour of three defendants is vitiated by fraud and as a consequence the subsequent sale transactions in favour of defendant Nos. 4 to 7 are void (O.S. No. 13/2016).

2. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India this civil revision petition is filed questioning the correctness of Order dated 25.06.2019 of learned X Additional District Judge, Narasapur in I.A. No. 57 of 2019 in O.S. No. 13 of 2016.

3. Respondent No. 1 is plaintiff in O.S. No. 13 of 2016. Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 are the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 13 of 2016. To the said suit in O.S. No. 13 of 2016 the present revision petitioners are third parties. They filed I.A. No. 57 of 2019 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking for their impleadment in O.S. No. 13 of 2016. After due contest and hearing the learned trial Court decided against them stating that they are neither necessary nor proper parties. It dismissed the petition prompting the third party petitioners to come up by this revision.

4. The following facts are relevant for consideration:

Sri Yallapu Abbulu filed O.S. No. 13 of 2016 stating that he owns and possesses plaint schedule property which is Siva Parvathi DTS Theater at Palakollu and in the context of borrowing money from Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 he was made to execute a General Power of-cum-agreement for sale in their favour and thereafter Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 sold out the property to Defendant Nos. 4 to 7 and it is in those circumstances, he filed the suit to declare the said GPA-cum-agreement for sale dated 5-8-2009 is vitiated by fraud and consequently to set-aside the subsequent transactions as void.

5. Defendants in the said suit put in their defence and suit went for trial and while the defendants were adducing their evidence third parties came up with petition and by the time the petition was decided by the trial Court, the original suit reached the stage of hearing arguments on both sides.

6. Four individuals filed O.S. No. 40 of 2017 before the Additional District Judge, Narsapur as against Sri Yallapu Abbulu (the said Yallapu Abbulu is the plaintiff in the earlier refereed O.S. No. 13 of 2016) alleging that for a valuable sale consideration of Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. Sri Yallapu Abbulu agreed to sell Sree Lakshmi Sai Chitralaya Theatre, Palakollu and received best part of consideration and executed agreement for sale dated 27-03-2008. Since he was not coming forward for completion of his obligations the suit was filed seeking for specific performance of that agreement for sale directing Sri Yallapu Abbulu to execute registered sale deed in favour of the agreement holders and alternatively prayed for refund of money.

7. Thus, it seems both the suits are pending before the learned X Additional District Judge, Narsapur.

8. The four individuals who filed the suit for specific performance sought for their impleadment in the suit filed by Sri Yallapu Abbulu against the GPA holders and others in their application I.A. No. 57 of 2019 they stated that the property disputed in both the suits is one and the same and over that property this third party impleading petitioners have got subsisting interest and therefore they seek for their impleadment and if it is not granted they would suffer serious loss and damage.

9. That application was contested by Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 who are Respondent Nos.7 and 8 in that I.A. No. 57 of 2019. They contended that this impleading petition is filed only to stall the progress of the suit. The suit for specific performance filed by the impleading petitioners is out of collusion between Sri Yallapu Abbulu and the impleading petitioners. They also detailed a few facts to substantiate that contention and they sought for