ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article

227 of Constitution of India, against the order dated 22.10.2022, dismissing I.A.No.239 of 2022 in O.S.No.78 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 r/w Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC to add the proposed party/2nd respondent as the 2nd defendant in the suit and to permit the petitioner to make the following consequential amendments to the plaint :-

a) To add Pendyala Yesubabu s/o Chinna Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 27 years, A. Annavaram, Santhavaram Mandal, Tuni JCJ as 2nd defendant in short and long cause title of the plaint.

b) To add 1st before the defendant in short and long cause title;

c) To add 1st before the defendant wherever it occurs in the plaint;

d) To add the following paragraph 5 (a) after para 5.

5(a). Subsequent to the filing of the suit and coming to know about the attachment of the petition schedule property the 1st defendant sold the property to his natural son who is the 2nd defendant herein. The plaintiff submits that though it was mentioned as a sale deed, no consideration was passed to the 1st defendant and the defendants 1 and 2 are the father and son and the 2nd defendant became a universal donee. But the document is recited as sale deed, the 2nd defendant is also liable to discharge the suit debt since the 2nd defendant in collusion with the 1st defendant and to avoid suit debt fraudulently obtained the sale deed.

e) To add ‘defendants’ in the place of ‘defendant’ in prayer portion of the plaint.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note dated 18.04.2014. Along with the suit, he filed I.A.No.657 of 2017 to attach the petition schedule property before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. The trial Court ordered conditional attachment on 07.04.2017 directing to issue notice to the respondent/ defendant to furnish security for the suit amount within 48 hours from the date of service of notice, failing which to attach the property. The property is situated in Tuni Mandal and therefore, notice of attachment was sent to the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Tuni for service on the respondent/defendant. The Amin served notice on 24.04.2017 granting 48 hours time to furnish security. As the defendant failed to furnish the security, the property was attached on 26.04.2017. Subsequenlty, the defendant appeared and filed counter in I.A.No.657 of 2017. On 08.09.2017, the petition was allowed and the attachment was made absolute. Later, the trial Court went on the trial. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of defendant, he was examined as D.W.1 and N.Negeswara Rao was examined as D.W.2 and the matter was posted for cross-examination of D.W.3 on 17.01.2022.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff contended that after commencement of trial, he came to know that the defendant transferred the petition schedule property in I.A.No.657 of 2017 in favour of his son (the proposed defendant No.2) by executing a registered sale deed on 21.4.2017 and that initially the plaintiff thought that the defendant sold the property to a third party, but his enquiries revealed that the transferee is the natural son of the defendant given in adoption to Sri Pendyla Chinna Surya Narayana who is the father-in-law of the defendant and sold the property to avoid the debts. The sale deed was marked as Ex.A2 in the cross- examination of D.W.1, and D.W.1 denied the relationship between him and R.2. D.W.2, in his cross-examination admitted that R.2 is the natural son of D.W.1 and that R.2 was given in adoption to the father-in-law of D.W.1. The plaintiff further stated that the defendant was watching the proceedings and immediately after filing of the suit and coming to know about the order of attachment, he transferred the property in the name of his natural son to avoid the debts and later he received the notice from Court and even then he