ORDER :

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order in I.A.No.131 of 2017 in O.S.No.01 of 2013 by the petitioner/plaintiff. Petitioner is a registered partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner seeks specific performance of Agreement dated 03.02.2006 (wrongly typed as 03.02.2010 in paragraph 8 and 9 of the plaint) with respect to suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.4.07 guntas (equivalent to 20273 square yards in Survey No.194/1, G.L.R. Survey No.255 falling under Secunderabad Cantonment Area situated at Ramakrishnapuram (Gandhinagar), Secunderabad Cantonment, Malkajgiri village and mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. In the plaint, the detailed description with respect to the entering into a contract for purchase of land in Survey No.194/1 and also in Survey No.211 starting with an MoU in 2016 and subsequent documents alleged to have been executed between the parties was mentioned. For the purpose of resolving the controversy in the present CRP, the details with respect to the same are not necessary except to state that the plaintiffs alleged to have been delivered with the possession of the suit schedule property.

3. Invoking Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC, the plaintiff sought to implead respondents 3 to 5 in the suit as defendants 3 to 5. As per the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioners found that employees of 5th respondent at the suit are site claiming right over the property and on further enquiry, the petitioners came to learn that the respondents 1 and 2 (Defendants 1 and 2), to create multiplicity of proceedings and in order to avoid the execution of Sale Deed pursuant to agreements entered into with the petitioners in collusion and in connivance with the respondents 3 to 5, created a Deed of Mortgage purporting to mortgage the suit schedule property along with the other properties on behalf of respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4 vide Mortgage Deed bearing No.1380/2015 dated 15.12.2015. The 4th respondent alleged to have assigned the debt owed and all its rights by assignment deed dated 28.03.2015 in favour of 5th respondent Asset Reconstruction Company. Petitioner also learnt that 5th respondent had initiated certain proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “SARFAESI Act”). The creation of mortgage in favour of 4th respondent by the respondents 1 and 2 is nonest in law and the same is in violation of status quo orders dated 04.01.2013 in I.A.No.28 of 2013. Petitioner asserts that the mortgage and the assignment deeds executed are illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff and as the said documents are creating cloud over the petitioner’s right over the suit schedule property and for effectual conveyance of property in their favour pursuant to the Agreement of Sale dated 03.02.2006, petitioner seeks to implead respondents 3 to 5 as defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. Petitioner asserts that respondents 3 to 5 are necessary and proper parties for effective adjudication of the dispute.

4. Respondent No.4 filed counter asserting that the petitioner be put to strict proof of respective averments in the affidavit. It is asserted that the creation of mortgage, assignment of debt and the mortgaged property in favour of the 5th respondent has been done strictly according to the rules; that the suit filed in 2013 with respect to alleged AGPA of the year 2006 and the petition filed after four years of mortgage and the same is collusive with defendants 1 and 2 and the delay is not explained; that they are not necessary or proper parties and hence prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. Respondent No.5 filed a separate counter denying the averments of the affidavit contending that the guarantee documents executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of 4th respon