Heard Sri Prabhakar Peri, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner-proposed party and Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, the learned counsel representing the first respondent.

2. The CRP is filed as against the order, dated 28.04.2006, made in I.A.No.221 of 2004 in A.S.No.30 of 2001 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Nellore. The application was filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for the purpose of convenience) for impleading the petitioner-proposed party as one of the respondents in A.S.No.30 of 2001. The learned Judge recorded certain reasons and, ultimately, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP is preferred.

3. This court, on 22.06.2006, granted stay of pronouncement of judgment in the said appeal and adjourned the matter to 13.07.2006 and the interim order was extended and the counsel for petitioner is permitted to take out notice and file proof of service. Thus, the matter is coming for admission and at the request of both the counsel on record; the CRP is being disposed of finally.

4. Sri Prabhakar Peri, the learned counsel representing the petitioner-proposed party would submit that it is an unfortunate case where the proposed party purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 05.06.1998. The counsel also would submit that the respondent in the appeal who had been successful in the suit is not interested in contesting the appeal and, as a purchaser pendentelite, the petitioner with a view to safeguard his interest filed the present application. The learned counsel also would submit that though the petitioner filed O.S.No.807 of 2002 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, the pendency of the said suit not come in the way in deciding this application, since any adverse judgment which may be made in this appeal may affect the petitioner-proposed party in any other pending suit as a whole. The counsel placed a strong reliance on RAJ KUMAR v SARDARI LAL AND OTHERS ((2004) 2 SCC 601) and AMIT KUMAR SHAW AND ANOTHER v FARIDA KHATOON AND ANOTHER ((2005) 11 SCC 403).

5. Per contra, Sri Srinivas Reddy, the learned counsel representing the first respondent had taken this Court through the reasons, which had been recorded. The counsel also would submit that the property, which the petitioner is claiming, and the subject matter of O.S.No.108 of 1992, appears to be different plots. The learned counsel also would submit that already a suit O.S.No.807 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore had been instituted and, hence, there is no need to allow the said application while permitting the petitioner-proposed party to come on record in A.S.No.30 of 2001.

6. Heard both the counsel.

7. It is the case of the revision petitioner that he purchased an extent of 100 ankanams of vacant site bearing plot No.3 comprised in S.C.No.347 of 2001 of Kondayapalem, Nellore town within the limits of Nellore Municipality by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 05.06.1998 for a consideration of Rs.1,08,000/- from the respondent in A.S.No.30 of 2001 and, thus, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. It is also stated that on 31.7.2002, there was an attempt to encroach upon his site and since he was unable to resist the highhanded acts of the first respondent, who is the appellant in A.S.No.30 of 2001, he had filed O.S.No.807 of 2002 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore against him for perpetual injunction and obtained interim injunction orders in I.A.No.864 of 2002 in the said suit. It is also stated that recently it came to his knowledge that there is collusion between the appellant-respondent in A.S.No.30 of 2001 and they are trying to create certain documents to defeat his rights relating to plot No.3.

8. The appellant in the appeal, the first respondent in the application, resisted the same denying the allegations. It is