ORDER :

The important point fell for consideration in this revision is whether a purchaser of immovable property is a necessary party in a suit filed for recovery of amount paid as advance under an agreement of sale executed prior to the sale.

2. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the defendants is directed against the orders, dated 11.03.2020, allowing IA.No.54 of 2019 in OS.No.61 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Chittoor, filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice to implead 2nd and 3rd respondents as 2nd and 3rd defendants with joint and several liability with the 1st respondent/sole defendant and make the consequential amendments as follows:

“a) In the small cause title and in the big cause title of the plaint showing the names of the proposed parties (Respondent No.2 and 3) as Defendant No.2 and 3 and their addresses respectively.

b) After para No.7 of the plaint add the following as para No.7(a) of the plaint.

“7(a) It is submitted that the 2nd defendant being the owner of the plaint schedule property and as Principal of his power of attorney the 1st Defendant herein, the 1st defendant also liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff. Further it is submitted that the 3rd Defendant knowing fully well about the suit agreement of sale, in collusion with 1st Defendant on behalf of the 2nd defendant has entered into and brought in to the existence of a sham and nominal sale deed dated 15-09-2014, the Defendant is also liable to pay the suit amount. Therefore, all the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay the suit amount. Hence the present suit.”

c) In the relief column of the plaint delete the word “Defendant” and add the words “Defendants jointly and severally”.”

3. Heard Sri M. Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/proposed defendants 2 & 3 1st and Sri P.Jagadishchandra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and Sri O. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defendant.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The defendant, Maddipatla Geethavani (1st respondent), being power of attorney on behalf of Shaik Shajahan S/o Md. Ibrahim (2nd respondent), executed the suit agreement of sale on 15.05.2014 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property.

In spite of notices, dated 10.07.2014, 28.07.2014, 03.04.2017, the defendant failed to perform her part of contract.

Thereafter, the plaintiff, on obtaining encumbrance certificate, came to know that after execution of the suit agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff, the 1st respondent executed a sham and nominal sale deed on 15.09.2014, in favour of the 3rd respondent collusively brought into existence in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff under the agreement of sale, dated 15.05.2014. Since the defendant failed to perform her part of the contract, the plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/-with interest. The defendant filed her written statement taking a false plea. After perusal of the written statement, owner and subsequent purchasers who are the 2nd and 3rd respondents are necessary parties to the suit and required to be impleaded as 2nd and 3rd defendants to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

(b) The original defendant/1st respondent did not file any counter. 2nd 3rd

The respondent also did not file any counter. The respondent filed counter denying the case of the petitioner. It is mainly contended that the 3rd respondent is not a necessary party since the suit is filed for recovery of amount only. It is further contended that the suit filed is not maintainable as the plaint schedule property is located at Tirupathi and the 1st respondent/sole defendant is resident of Tirupathi, and as such, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; that earlier, the petitioner filed I.A.No.11 of 2019 proposing t