ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Principal District Judge, dated 26.08.2022 in I.A.No.135 of 2022 in O.S.No.63 of 2012. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.135 of

2022 to implead himself as defendant No.6 in the suit.

2. Brief facts relevant to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that one K.Buchi Reddy had two sons by name Venkat Reddy and Damoder Reddy. Venkat Reddy in turn had two sons by name Jagadeesh Reddy and Sudheer Reddy. While Damoder Reddy also had two sons by name Srinivas Reddy and Raghuram Reddy. There was a partition of properties between the Venkat Reddy and Damoder Reddy. According to K.Damoder Reddy, as per the memorandum of past partition dated 01.05.1985, the house property situated at Mahabubad, fell to his share, but K.Sudheer Reddy, in collusion with other defendants, created fictitious documents of sale. In view of the same, K.Damoder Reddy filed a suit in O.S.No.60 of 2012 against K.Sudheer Reddy and others. The allegation was that Sudheer Reddy/defendant No.1 has created fictitious documents of sale in favour of defendant No.2 and in turn defendant No.2 has sold away the property to defendant Nos.3 and 4 and later in favour of defendant No.5. In view of the same, K.Damoder Reddy filed a suit against the K.Sudheer Reddy/defendant No.1 and subsequent purchasers of the property as defendant Nos.2 to 5 and sought cancellation of the sale deeds of the defendants and to declare the plaintiff as the owner of the property and put him in possession of the suit scheduled property.

3. The defendants filed written statements denying the allegations of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the brother of K.Sudheer Reddy filed suit O.S.No.169 of 2012 for partition and separate possession of the property. He made K.Sudheer Reddy as defendant No.1 and subsequent purchasers of the property as defendants No.2 to 5. The defendants also filed their written statements in O.S.No.169 of 2012. Thereafter, the suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiff, who is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition, filed I.A.No.377 of 2022 for restoration of the suit and the same was pending consideration of the Court. In the meantime, in suit i.e., O.S.No.60 of 2012, the evidence of Pws1 to 4 has already been completed and was coming for defendant(cid:146)s evidence. At such time, the petitioner filed I.A.No.135 of 2022, for impleading himself as defendant No.6 in O.S.No.60 of 2012. In the meantime, the plaintiff had died and his family members have been impleaded as co-plaintiffs. The plaintiffs opposed the implead petition and the defendants No.6 to 9 also opposed the said application.

4. The Principal District Judge at Yadadri Bhongir, after considering all the material on record, dismissed the I.A., against which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the submissions made in the affidavits filed in support of I.A.No.135 of 2022, submitted that the petitioner has filed the suit O.S.No. 169 of 2012 for partition against his brother, who is the defendant No.1 in suit O.S.No.60 of 2012 and since the property included in the partition suit is the same property which is also involved in O.S.No.60 of 2012, the petitioner is the proper and necessary party to the suit O.S.No.60 of 2012 and therefore, he has to be impleaded as defendants No.6 in the suit. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the following three judgments:

1. Sumatibai and Others Vs. Paras Finance Co.1;

2. Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs.

Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Others2;

3. Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya Vs. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya3.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents however, opposed the said contentions and submitted that the plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.60 of 2012 and the father of the petitioner herein were brothers and there was a partition amongst them long ago and the petitioner had also fi