Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The vs Unknown on 24 November, 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3586 of 2019
ORDER:
The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.575 of 2013
in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for
specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been
executed between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent in the
revision petition. This suit was dismissed on 20.08.2015.
Thereupon, the 2nd respondent in the present revision petition
had transferred an extent of Ac.0-50 cents of land out of the suit
schedule property to her daughter by way of a deed of gift dated
03.09.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed A.S.No.230 of
2015 being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated
20.08.2015 in O.S.No.575 of 2013.
2. The above said appeal is pending and the 1st
respondent, who is the daughter to whom the 2nd respondent
had transferred Ac.0-50 cents by way of a gift deed, had filed
I.A.No.364 of 2017 to implead herself as the 2nd respondent in
the appeal pending before the VII Additional District & Sessions
Judge's Court, Vijayawada. This application was allowed on
01.08.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was filed the
present revision petition on the ground that the 1st respondent
herein is not a necessary party who can be impleaded under the
provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C.
3. Heard Smt Santhi Sree, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Smt Sirisha, learned counsel for the
respondents.
4. A perusal of the documents and the material placed
before this Court would show that a part of the suit schedule
property has been transferred to the 1st respondent and it would
be to the benefit of the petitioner himself if the 1st respondent is
made a party to the appeal as that would reduce any
multiplicity of the proceedings. Further, the 1st respondent
would also be a proper and necessary party, inasmuch as any
decision taken by the Appellate Court would be a comprehensive
decision, if the 1st respondent is also a party to the proceedings.
5. Smt Sirisha, learned counsel for the respondents
has also placed a order of the learned Single Judge of the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.S.M.P.No.241 of
2012 in A.S.No.454 of 1997 between K.Srinivasulu vs. Jaldu
Subramanyamchetty & others, dated 27.08.2013.
6. I am in respectful agreement with the principles of
law laid down by the learned Single Judge in that order and in
view of the above observations of this Court, I do not find any
reason to interfere with the orders of the first Appellate Court.
7. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
24.11.2021
SDP
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3586 of 2019
24-11-2021
SDP
