ORDER:

Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India this revision is filed by the sole defendant in the suit whose application to implead a third party/respondent herein was negatived by the learned trial Court.

2. Respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff in the suit.

3. O.S.No.34 of 2016 is a suit filed before Spl.Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, wherein the plaintiff sought for permanent injunction against the defendant and his men from alienating the remaining parts of the plaint schedule property and for costs and such other reliefs. The sole defendant in the suit filed his written statement. Suit went for trial. During the pendency of the said trial, defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.321 of 2017 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead Sri Sadhu Ramana Murthy as one of the defendants and array him as defendant No.2 in the suit and direct the plaintiff to amend the plaint accordingly. This impleadment is necessary in the ends of the justice. To that application of the defendant, plaintiff who was shown as respondent No.1 filed his counter. The proposed party made appearance and filed his counter. On enquiry, by the impugned Order dated 05.12.2017, the learned Additional District Judge, dismissed the petition. It is against that Order the present revision is filed.

4. From the averments in the plaint and the averments in the written statement a few facts that have come up between the parties are to be noticed. The plaintiff, the defendant, Sri T.Dosareddy and Sri K.Satish Reddy have got acquaintance among themselves. All of them are engaged in real estate business and purchased property and work out for lay outs and sell the plots. Together they raised a venture called ‘Meher Brindavanam’. It seems that their joining together is not by any particular written partnership deed. However, they seem to have come together and floated that venture. It is in the context of those facts, certain disputes arose between two out of them who are arrayed as parties to the suit. The allegations in the plaint indicate that under different sale deeds these four people purchased properties from different persons. Commonality in these transactions is that for each sale deed two out of four of them happened to be purchasers. It is in that process there was one sale deed under which certain extent of land was purchased by the plaintiff and defendant together. The plaintiff is not a party to the rest of the sale deeds. While these things stood there, the defendant seems to have obtained a General Power of Attorney from another individual by name A.Amaravathi concerning another property. The allegation is that showing that G.P.A., the defendant started selling away the properties from the lay out that was floated by all the four individuals. With a view to inhibit the defendant from going ahead with any further alienations the suit for permanent injunction was filed. In the written statement, defendant admitted purchase of property by him along with plaintiff under one registered sale deed and thereafter denied the rest of the allegations leveled by the plaintiff. He stated that plaintiff had no role in the transactions and in the ‘Meher Brindavanam’ lay out all the plots were already sold out. Out of envy plaintiff came up with this false suit and he sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The above rival pleadings indicate that between the parties the only dispute is whether concerning plaint schedule properties alienations could be affected independently by each of the parties or collectively by both the parties or both the parties together with their two other friends. No other questions do arise by virtue of the pleadings set out and available in the suit.

6. It was in such suit, the defendant had come to move an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. saying that pending trial of the suit the plaintiff sold out 30 plots to Sri Sadhu Ramana Murthy. Th