This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 13.12.2007, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 4040 of 2007 in O.S. No. 1500 of 2002, filed by the petitioner seeking to get himself impleaded as plaintiff NO.2 in the suit and all interlocutory applications, on the ground that he is a proper and necessary party, and permit necessary amendments.

2. The petitioner filed the present application seeking to implead himself as plaintiff No.2 inter alia stating that the plaintiff originally filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant-respondent No.2 with respect to the suit schedule property on 11.10.2002 and continued to prosecute the same. That the plaintiff-respondent No.1, is a senior citizen aged about 75 years and is now permanently settled in Chennai. He states that he had advanced hand loan of Rs.25,00,000/- to the plaintiff-respondent No.1, which she agreed to repay after sale of the suit schedule property. That thereafter, she proposed and agreed to sell to the suit schedule property to him for a total sale consideration of Rs.35,00,000/-. Accepting the said proposal, the petitioner states that he paid to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on 04.09.2006 by way of demand draft, and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash on 05.09.2006, and that having received the said amounts, the plaintiff-respondent No.1, executed an agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney dated 05.09.2006 in his favour. He further states that the plaintiff agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- at the time of execution of registered sale deed. On 23.01.2007, the petitioner states that he paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 by way of demand draft, and the plaintiff-respondent No.1 having encashed the same, executed registered sale deed in his favour on 25.01.2007. That the Municipality has also mutated his name in the records vide proceedings dated 02.02.2007, and since then he is paying the municipal taxes, and that he had also obtained municipal permission for construction of a building, and accordingly constructed a building in the suit schedule property.

3. He further states that when he insisted for repayment of the hand loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- advanced by him, by telephone/addressing letters/notices, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 refused to repay the same, and in fact, gave an indirect indication that she would not prosecute the present suit filed by her against the defendant/respondent No.2. The petitioner states that he having purchased the suit schedule property from the plaintiff-respondent No.1 become the owner thereof and had constructed a building therein after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipality, and having regard to the fact that the original plaintiff-respondent No.1 gave an indication that she is not interested in prosecuting the suit against the defendant, he should be permitted to get himself impleaded in the suit and prosecute the suit, else the purchase of the suit schedule property made by him would be frustrated and he will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Hence, he contended that the Court below committed an error in dismissing the present application tiled by him seeking to implead as plaintiff No.2 in the suit, prayed that the impugned order be set aside, and the C.R.P. be allowed.

4. The plaintiff, who was arrayed as respondent No.1 did not file counter.

5. The defendant, who was arrayed as respondent No.2 filed counter inter alia stating that the husband of the plaintiff/respondent No.1, namely Wg. Cdr. B.G. Narayanan (Retd.) were colleagues and friends. That prior to his retirement, the husband of plaintiff-respondent No.1, was allotted the suit schedule property, Plot No. 117 (New) B-65, (Old), Vayupuri, Air Force Officers Co-operative Housing Society Limited, vide registered document No. 3323/68,d