ORDER:

This revision is directed against the order, dated 14.06.2022, dismissing I.A.No.184 of 2021 in O.S.No.288 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, filed by the petitioner/proposed 2nd defendant under Section 151 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC with a prayer to implead her as 2nd defendant in the main suit.

2. Heard Sri P.N. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

3. The case of the petitioner in support of her case is as follows:

The revision petitioner/proposed 2nd defendant had purchased an extent of 302 square yards of vacant site in R.S.No.175/10 situated in Vandram minor gram panchayat, Undi mandal, West Godavari District from Kesaboina Vijaya Gopalam under a registered sale deed, dated 17.01.2019, for a consideration of Rs.4,53,000/- and since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said extent has been purchased by the vendor of the petitioner in a court auction conducted on 10.10.2017, and a sale certificate was issued by the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram. While so, the petitioner came to know that the 1st respondent/plaintiff alleged to have purchased an extent of 195.5 square yards from the 2nd respondent/defendant under a registered sale deed, dated 14.06.2021, and got filed a false suit as well as interlocutory application in I.A.No.132 of 2021 seeking permanent injunction. The alleged registered sale deed, dated 14.06.2021, is a fraudulent and collusive one. On enquiries, the proposed party came to know that a registered sale deed, dated 22.09.2003, was alleged to have been executed by one Buddaraju Sitharamanjaneya Raju in favour of the 2nd respondent/defendant and that the alleged registered sale deed, dated 22.09.2003, was set aside in Creditor I.P.No.11 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. So, the 1st respondent/plaintiff does not conferred with any right, interest and title in the alleged 195.5 square yards of site and he has no right, interest or title in the same. In the said facts and circumstances, the presence of the petitioner/proposed party is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate the questions involved in the suit. Hence, the present petition seeking impleadment of the petitioner as 2nd defendant has been filed.

4. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a detailed counter opposing the petition. Precisely, it is stated in the counter that Kesaboina Vijaya Gopalam obtained sale certificate through process of Court as an auction purchaser but he has not obtained possession through process of law, and as such, the question of delivery of possession to the proposed party does not arise. The proposed party is neither a necessary nor proper party to the suit. The proposed party claimed right against ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedules of the plaint. But in the suit, the plaintiff prayed for permanent injunction in respect of plaint ‘A’ schedule site and plaint ‘B’ schedule is a passage which is being used by the defendant for ingress and egress from the building situated to the west of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule to eastern side road. The proposed party is not entitled to join as a defendant in the suit and she has to file a suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

5. After hearing both sides, the trial Court, dismissed the petition holding that impleadment of the proposed party in the suit will not render any use to the petitioner as there is a dispute to her title itself.

6. Hence, this revision by the proposed party/proposed 2nd defendant.

7. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that she has interest in the disputed property and the 2nd respondent/defendant remained ex parte and thereby, allowed the plaintiff to have the decree against her for perpetual injunction and therefore, unless the petitioner is impleaded as a party to the suit, no effective adjudication ca