ORDER:

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the unsuccessful plaintiff is directed against the orders dated 30.07.2018 of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, passed in IA.No.349 of 2018 in OS.No.79 of 2009 filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to implead the proposed respondents 7 and 8 as defendants 7 and 8, and order for amendment of the plaint and allow consequential amendments.

2. Heard Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs and Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants 2 to 6. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants.

3. The facts, which are necessary, in brief, are as follows:

3.1 The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of plaint A and B schedule properties into five equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs. After examination of PWs1 and 2, the suit was posted for further evidence of PW2 to 16.10.2017. At this stage, PW2 also filed a petition to mark the document styled ‘Family Arrangement, dated 30.10.1970’ executed by Talluri Subbarayudu in favour of the father of PW2. The said petition is pending. When the proceedings are pending and when the matter is in progress during trial, PW2 came to know that Tummalapati Ananthalakshmi wife of Sudhakara Rao, resident of Mulaguntapadu S.Konda village and Mandal and who is a close relative of Talluri Subbarayudu, who already executed a Family Arrangement document dated 30.10.1970, created a forged Will dated 24.11.2007, with a view to grab the schedule properties. Taking advantage of the said Will, she sold away some part of the schedule property to one Talluri Srinivasulu S/o Brahmaiah of Kanigiri under a GPA-cum-sale dated 29.01.2020. In fact, Tummalapudi Ananthalakshmi has no manner of right, title or possession over part of schedule properties and the alleged GPA-cum-Sale executed by her in favour of Talluri Srinivasulu is non est in the eye of law and it will not be binding on them. Thus, Tummalapudi Ananthalakshmi, wife of Sudhakara Rao and Talluri Srinivasulu S/o Brahmaiah, shown as proposed respondents are proper and necessary parties to decide the issue in question. Hence, the present petition by the plaintiffs seeking impleadment of respondents 7 and 8 as defendants 7 and 8.

3.2 The 1st respondent/1st defendant is stated to have died during the pendency of the suit before the trial Court. The defendants 2 to 4 filed common counter with the following averments:

Defendants 5 & 6 are two sons of the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs and defendants 5 &6 collusively filed the present petition in order to stall the proceedings of the suit. The 2nd plaintiff has sworn to the affidavit suppressing the fact that he has already deposed as PW2. The 1st plaintiff was examined as PW1. In the year 2012, she was cross-examined on 23.8.2012. The 2nd plaintiff filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief in the month of September, 2017. He was cross-examined at length on 11.10.2017. Neither PW1 nor PW2 spoke regarding the execution of alleged GPA-cum-Sale dated 29.01.2010. The proposed defendants are none other than the son and daughter of Brahmaiah, who is no other than the younger brother of 1st plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot plead ignorance about the alleged GPA- cum-Sale. Had the plaintiffs deposed about this GPA in their evidence, they would have been cross-examined on the said GPA. Further, the alleged GPA-cum-sale is subsequent to the suit and therefore, it is hit by the doctrine of lis pendense. The alleged GPA is non est in the eye of law. The plaintiffs have already filed affidavit of one of the proposed defendant in lieu of examination in chief as PW3, who also allegedly obtained the GPA-cum-agreement of sale has not stated about the existence of the docum