The vs Rajanna
2021 Latest Caselaw 3765 AP

              HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

                       MAIN CASE No. A.S.No.1302 of 2018


                                     PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.No     DATE                                                                        Office
                                                 ORDER

Note 24.09.2021 RRR, J

I.A.No.1 of 2020 and I.A.No.1 of 2021

The petitioner in the present applications, who is third party to the appeal, had purchased the suit schedule property from the 1st respondent/appellant/ defendant by way of a registered deed of sale dated 21.07.2016.

The 2nd respondent had filed O.S.No.223 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, for specific performance of oral agreement of sale dated 18.06.2016. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, as a sole defendant in the said suit, had denied the oral agreement of sale and had also admitted that the suit schedule property had already been sold to the petitioner on 21.07.2016.

The trial Court after trial and enquiry, had allowed the suit directing specific performance of the said agreement of sale dated 18.06.2016. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the 1st respondent had filed the present appeal before this Court and had obtained a stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 07.06.2018.

At that stage, the petitioner came to know that the 1st respondent has now executed a deed of sale in favour of the 2nd respondent on 19.10.2020 and is now seeking to withdraw the present appeal, which would cause grave and irreparable loss to the petitioner herein. In that view of the matter, the

petitioner has now filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 to implead him as respondent No.2 in the appeal and I.A.No.1 of 2021 to transpose him as the 2nd appellant in the appeal.

Heard Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in this application and Sri V. Rajanna, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/appellant.

In view of the above facts, it is clear that the action of the 1st respondent in executing a fresh deed of sale in favour of the 2nd respondent and seeking to withdraw the appeal entitle the petitioner herein to be impleaded as party respondent in the appeal initially, and then transpose as the 2nd appellant in the appeal.

In the circumstances, both the I.As are allowed and the cause title is now be amended to show the petitioner herein as the 2nd appellant in the appeal.

_________ RRR, J Js.