ORDER:

The petitioner/3rd party to the suit filed the above Revision against the order dated 20.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.25 of 2022 in O.S.No.89 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

2. The 1st respondent herein, being plaintiff, initially filed suit in O.S.No.402 of 2009 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Srikakulam, seeking perpetual injunction against D1 to D4. The suit was dismissed for default and subsequently, it was restored. Since D1 to D4 denied the title and possession of the plaintiff by filing the written statement, the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the suit declaring the title and recovery of possession of the property.

3. After amending, the prayer reads as follows:

a) Declaring that the Vendors/ proposed vendors of plaintiff has got absolute and exclusive title, right, inters and ownership over the suit schedule land;

b) Directing the defendants to deliver possession/ hand-

over custody of suit schedule land to the plaintiff.

c) Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.3,000/- in a lumpsum, tentatively, with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deed i.e. 02.06.2009.

d) Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land in any manner whatsoever etc., 4. Pending the suit, revision petitioner and two other purchasers of the plaint schedule property, under different registered sale deeds, filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead them as defendant Nos. 5 to 7 to the suit.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter-alia that the proposed 1st petitioner purchased Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.128/3 under registered sale deed dated 28.07.2016 from Matcha Ramarao, who is the defendant No.2 in the suit; the property was delivered and since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The revenue authorities also updated revenue records and mutated his name and issued pattadar pass book and title deed. The 6th respondent herein/proposed 2nd petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.2.50 cents from Matcha Sankara Rao under a registered sale deed dated 28.07.2016 and the 7th respondent herein/ proposed 3rd petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0.53 cents from his ancestors. It was further contended that when the Advocate Commissioner along with Mandal Surveyor visited the schedule property in the month of April, 2021, they came to know about the suit. Hence, the proposed petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 filed an application to implead themselves as defendant Nos. 5 to 7 to the suit.

6. The respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff opposed the application and filed a detailed counter regarding filing of suit for perpetual injunction initially and then seeking amendment of the suit for declaration and recovery as stated supra.

7. It was further contended that respondent No.5 herein/4th defendant filed an additional written statement on 06.02.2017, but did not disclose about the alienation. During the cross- examination of the plaintiff, vague suggestions were put to the witness. The proposed 1st petitioner sold Ac.0.50 cents, out of Ac.1.50 cents, under registered sale deed dated 30.10.2019 to M.Hemalatha, D/o.M.Rama Rao, who is the 2nd defendant and on the same day another document was also created in the name of Matcha Malleswara Rao for an extent of Ac.0.50 cents. Having sold the said lands, the petitioner sought to implead him basing on his claim for Ac.1.50 cents. In the counter affidavit, it was further pleaded about the alienations by other proposed parties also.

8. Trial Court, by order dated 20.07.2022, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the proposed 1st petitioner alone filed the above revision and the other two parties did not file any revision however they were shown as respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and not necessar