ORDER:

Defendant in suit filed the above revision petition against the order dated 06.07.2022 in I.A.No.224 of 2021 in O.S.No.514 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.514 of 2018 against the defendant seeking specific performance of contract of sale dated 06.09.2007. According to the plaintiff, one Sri Dronavalli Seshamma is the owner of the house property of an extent 807.55 sq.yards in R.S.No.190/10 at Patamata, Vijayawada. She executed a development agreement dated 14.08.2006 in favour of the defendant. During the lifetime of Sri Dronavalli Seshamma, defendant agreed to sell the Flat No.6, second floor in Seetarama Towers to the plaintiff. Accordingly, an agreement of sale was executed dated 06.09.2007 and the same was registered as document vide Document No.4348/2007. Since the agreement was not honored, suit was filed seeking specific performance.

3. Defendant filed the written statement and is contesting the suit. Pending the suit, defendant filed I.A.No.224 of 2021 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to implead Sri Perumalla Prabhakara Rao, brother of the plaintiff in the suit.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that brother of the plaintiff filed another suit O.S.No.45 of 2017 for recovery of amount paid by him towards sale consideration of suit schedule property and other properties. Transaction in suit O.S.No.45 of 2017 and the present is one and the same. Plaintiff and his brother are claiming to have paid consideration qua the plaint schedule property separately and hence application is filed to implead the brother as second plaintiff in the suit.

5. Plaintiff filed the counter and opposed the application. By order dated 06.07.2022, Trial Court dismissed the application.

Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

6. Heard Sri T. Vishnu Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Jaya Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that brother of the plaintiff in suit O.S.No.514 of 2018 filed the separate suit O.S.No.45 of 2017 for recovery of amounts. The transaction in O.S.No.514 of 2018 and the amount claimed in O.S.No.45 of 2017 are one and the same and hence application is filed seeking impleadment.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the suit O.S.No.514 of 2018 was filed for specific performance. The proposed party is nothing to do with the agreement of sale and his presence is not required to adjudicate the suit and is neither a proper nor a necessary party.

9. The point for consideration is:

Whether the proposed party is proper and necessary party?

10. Suit O.S.No.514 of 2018 was filed seeking specific performance for agreement of contract dated 06.09.2007. The proposed party is nothing to do with the agreement of sale.

11. Plaintiff, being dominus litis, filed suit seeking relief of specific performance. Surprisingly, the defendant filed application seeking to implead third party as second plaintiff in the suit for specific performance, that too, when the third party has no semblance of right in respect of subject property. Third party sought to be impleaded is not a party to the agreement. Trial Court considered all the aspects and dismissed the application by a reasoned order.

This Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. There are no merits in the revision and the revision is liable to dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date : 04.05.2023 KAS

201 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1619 of 2022 Date :04.05.2023 KAS