APHC010478342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2330 of 2025 Between: 1. TALADI NAGA VENI, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. KONIKI VILLAGE PARCHUR, DMC, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY BAPATIA DISTRICT. 2. MINISETTY LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. KONIKI VILLAGE PARCHUR, DMC, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY BAPATIA DISTRICT. 3. KONDAPALLI SRINIVASA RAO @ SRINU, S/O. BRAHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. KONIKI VILLAGE PARCHUR, DMC, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY BAPATIA DISTRICT. 4. DUDDU RAMA RAO,, S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. KONIKI VILLAGE PARCHUR, DMC, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY BAPATIA DISTRICT. 5. DAVULURI RAMANJANEYULU, S/O. VENKAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. KONIKI VILLAGE PARCHUR, DMC, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY BAPATLA DISTRICT. 6. NELLURI HARI ANJANAYULU, S/O. NAGABHUSHANAM AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. KONIKI VILLAGE PARCHUR, DMC, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY BAPATLA DISTRICT. 7. PELLURI SRINU, S/O. ANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. KONIKI VILLAGE PARCHUR, DMC, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY BAPATLA DISTRICT. 8. GATTU SIVA RAMA KRISHNA,, S/O. CHIMPIRAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. KONIKI VILLAGE PARCHUR, DMC, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY BAPATLA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 2 1. PINAPA SUSEE LAKSHMI, W/O. ASHOKA CHAKRAVARTHY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. SRI CHAITANYA COLLEGE VIJAYAWADA. 2. GATTU BHAVANI, D/O. VENKATESWARLU (D1-EXP) R/O. INKOLLU, PARCHUR DMC, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY BAPATLA DISTRICT. 3. ANAALA SUBHASHINI, W/O. VENKATA SUBBARAO (D2-EXP) R/O. SOPIRLA, CHIRALA DMC, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY BAPATLA DISTRICT 4. GATTU VENKATESWARLU, (D3 - DIED) 5. GATTU RAMA DEVI, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. KRISHNA NAGAR, INKOLLU, PARCHUR DMC. (R.5 ADDED AS L.R OF DECEASED R4/D3 AS PER ORDERS IN I.A NO. 740 OF 2018 DT. 03-04-2019) 6. BELLAM RAMA RAO, S/O. MASTANAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YECIRS, R/O. KONIKI VILLAGE PARCHUR, DMC, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY BAPATLA DISTRICT. 7. KEMA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O. ANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O. KONIKI VILLAGE PARCHUR, DMC, PRETKASAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Order Dt. 16-07-2025 in I.A No. 14 of 2017 in F.D.I.A No. 651 of 2016 in O.S.No.49 of 2007 on the file of the Civil Judge Court (Senior Division), Parchur. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MARRI VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 Constitution of India to set aside the Order dated 16.07.2025 in I.A.No.14 of 2017 in F.D.I.A No 651 of 2016 in O.S.No.49 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parchur, and, consequently, to allow the I.A.No.14 of 2017 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and Section 151 of C.P.C. 2. The 1st respondent (plaintiff) herein filed suit O.S.No.49 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parchur, for partition against respondents 2 to 4 herein who are defendants 2 to 4 for partition of the suit schedule properties into four equal shares and to allot one such share to the 1st respondent (plaintiff). The said suit was decreed, vide judgment dated 09.09.2014. The 1st respondent herein filed F.D.I.A.No.651 of 2016 under Order 20 Rule 18 C.P.C. to pass final decree in-terms of preliminary decree. 3. The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.14 of 2017 to implead them as party respondents under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. on the ground that the 3rd defendant in the suit along with his two brothers, namely, Ramaiah and Chimparaiah, have sold the suit schedule properties to the petitioners herein and the plaintiff and the defendants have obtained the preliminary decree collusively. 4. The 1st respondent (plaintiff) contested the I.A.No.14 of 2017 on the ground that she has filed I.A.No.560 of 2008 in the suit to add the present petitioners herein as parties to the suit and the petitioners herein have vehemently opposed the said I.A., pleading that they are 4 not necessary parties to the suit and, on such pleading, the I.A.No.560 of 2008 was dismissed now the petitioners cannot plead to add them as parties to the final decree proceedings additionally it is pleaded that the present I.A., is filed in collusive to delay the final decree proceedings. 5. After considering the submissions of the petitioners and the 1st respondent herein and the executing court has dismissed the I.A.No.14 of 2017 filed in F.D.I.A.No.651 of 2016, vide order dated 16.07.2025, inter alia, observing that once preliminary decree is passed, the right of parties are adjudged in the preliminary decree itself and so the rights of proposed parties cannot be determined in the final decree after a decade, if at all, the petitioners herein are aggrieved by the preliminary decree in any manner, only recourse open to the petitioners herein is to file independent suit to put-forth their contention. 6. The Order dated 16.07.2025 in I.A.No.14 of 2017 in F.D.I.A.No.651 of 2016 in O.S.No.49 of 2007 of the Executing Court is assailed in the present revision petition, placing reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, in the case of Rukya Bee and Anr. Vs. Syed Afzal and Ors., reported in MANU/AP/0325/2005, for the proposition that the vendees of one of the share holders are entitled to come on record in the final decree proceedings only to the limited extent to read the benefits of the preliminary decree insofar as the share of his vendor/s. 7. In the cited judgment, the Executing Court has allowed the implead petition. Assailing the same, the plaintiff filed Civil Revision Petition before the High Court. While affirming the order of the 5 Executing Court, the High Court observed that the implead petitioner not to dispute the validity of the preliminary decree and to file a separate suit to assert rights. 8. The 1st respondent's counsel would submit that 1st respondent (plaintiff) filed a similar application (I.A.No.560 of 2008) in the suit to implead the present petitioners as parties. These petitioners vehemently opposed the application, which was dismissed. As a result, the impugned order passed by the lower court was correct and cannot be faulted. 9. The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 10. It was asserted in the affidavit that they had purchased the suit schedule land prior to the filing of the suit. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.560 of 2008 to implead these proposed petitioners as parties to the suit. These proposed petitioners significantly opposed the said application, arguing that they were not necessary parties to the suit. Accordingly, the I.A. was dismissed, accepting their opposition as correct 11. The petitioners herein vehemently opposed their impleadment in I.A.No.560 of 2008, which was filed by the 1st respondent herein and later dismissed. Consequently, the petitioners cannot now agitate to 6 come on record. The petitioners are not permitted to approbate and reprobate. The petitioners cannot say at one time that they are not necessary parties to the suit and turn round and say that they are proper and necessary parties in the execution proceedings. 12. The instant petition filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. is hit by principles of res judicata, as similar such application was rejected earlier, in I.A.No.560 of 2008 by the trial Court on the pleadings of proposed implead petitioners that they are not necessary parties to the suit. Law is well settled that principles of res judicaata are applicable to different stages of the same suit or proceeding. 13. This Court found no reasons to interdict with the reasoned order dated 16.07.2025 in I.A.No.14 of 2017 in F.D.I.A.No.651 of 2016 in O.S.No.49 of 2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parchur. 14. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, however, no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 23.09.2025 siva 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2330 OF 2025 Date: 23.09.2025 siva