IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 2522. 2523. AND 2525 OF 2023 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION (SR) NO: 40003 OF 2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2522 OF 2023 APHC010497942023 Petition under Section 115 of CPC, Aggrieved by the orders dated 17/08/2023 passed by the Court of VIII Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada, in G.L No.2416 of 2023 in O.S. No.21 of 2023. Between: Duddu Raviteja, S/o. Meriyo, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Private Employee R/o. Flat No. 402, Mark Residency, Beside Sanjeevan Hostel, Gunadala Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/Defendant No.4 AND 1. Bandia Venkata Siva Nageswar Rao, S/o.Veera Ragavaiah, Aged about 53 years, R/o. D.No 53-1-333, Main Road, Christurajapuram, Peda Bavi Center, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. % ...Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Sharimila Akkamma Jesudasan, W/o M. Suneel Kumar, Aged about 57 R/o D.NO. 18-395-4, Flat No. 105, 1st Floor, Brundavan years Resindency, Venugopal Nagar, Anathapur-515001. 3. Joseph Sushanth Jesudasan, S/o Joseph Jesudasan, Aged about 54 STM Town Ship, Near RIMS, Putlam years, R/o.D.No 85/413-311 Palli, Sankara Puram, Cuddpah -516002. 4. Prathima Ignatius, W/o Ignatius Kumar, Aged about 52 years, R/o D.No. Nayakan street Extesion, West Mambalam, 55/19, Balakrishna Chennai-600033 ...Respondent/Defendant Nos.1 to 3 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance 17/08/2023 in O.S. No.21 of 2023 on the file of Vlll Addl. District Judge Vijayawada. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. PSP Suresh Kumar Counsel for the Respondents Nos. 2, 3 & 4: Sri. P N Murthy Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri. Ithapu Subrahmanyeswara Rao CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2523 OF 2023 to the Compromise Decree dated APHC010498052023 under Section 115 of CPC, aggrieved by the orders dated of Vlll Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada, in the Petitioner beg to submit the Petition 17/08/2023 passed by the Court l.A. No.447 of 2023 in O.S. No.21 of 2023 present Revision Petition. Between: •S/o. Meriyo, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Private Empioyee, Beside Sanjeevan Hostel, Gunadala Duddu Raviteja R/o. Flat No. 402, Mark Residency Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/Defendant No.4 AND 1 Bandla Venkata Siva Samba Nageswar Rao, S/o. Veera Ragava.ah, ■ Aged about 53 years, R/o. D.No 53-1-333, Main Road. Christurajapuram, Peda Bavi Center, Gunadaia, Vrjayawada, Knshna District. .. .Respondent/Plaintiff . Suneel Kumar, Aged about 57 2 Sharimila Akkamma Jesudasan, W/o M D.NO. 18-395-4, Flat No. 105, 1st Floor, Brundavan Venugopal Nagar, Anathapur-515001. , S/o Joseph Jesudasan, Aged about 54 STM Town Ship, Near RIMS, Putlam years, R/o Resindency, 3. Joseph Sushanth Jesudasan R/o. D.No 85/413-311 years, Palli Sankara Puram, Cuddpah -516002. 4. Prathima Ignatius, W/o Ignatius Kumar. Aged about 52 years, R/o street Extesion, West Mambalam, D.No. 55/19, Balakrishna Nayakan Chennai-600033. ...Respondents/Defendants Nos.1 to 3 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to to the Compromise Decree dated of Vlll Addl. District Judge. all further proceedings in pursuance 17/08/2023 in O.S. No.21 of 2023 on the file stay Vijayawada. Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents Nos ; Sri. PSP Suresh Kumar 2, 3 & 4: Sri. P N Nlurthy i. Ithapu Subrahmanyeswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sn pftitiQN NO: 2^25 OF 20^ r.iVIL REVISION APHC010498022023 section 115 of CPC, aggrieved by the orders dated District Judge, Vijayawada, in Petition under 17/08/2023 passed by the Court of Vlll Addl |,A. No.858 of 2023 in O.S. No.21. of 2023. Between; . Meriyo, Aged about 37 years, Occ Private Employee, Hostel, Gunadala, Duddu Raviteja, S/ o Flat No. 402, Mark Residency, Beside Sanjeevan R/o Vijayawada, Krishna District. Petitioner/Defendant No.4 AND S/o.Veera Ragavaiah, Aged about Peda Bavi 1. Bandla Venkata Siva Nageswar Rao 53 years R/o. D.No 53-1-333, Main Road, Christurajapuram Center, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Respondent/Plaintiff Resindency, Venugopal Nagar, Anathapur-515001. 3. Joseph Sushanth Jesudasan, S/o Joseph Jesudasan, Aged about 54 years, R/o.D.No 85/413-311, STM Town Ship, Near RIMS, Putlam Palli, Sankara Puram, Cuddpah -516002. 4. Prathima Ignatius, W/o Ignatius Kumar, Aged about 52 years, R/o D.No. 55/19, Balakrishna Nayakan street Extesion, West Mambalam, Chennai-600033. ...Respondent/Defendant Nos.1 to 3 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the Compromise Decree dated 17/08/2023 in O.S. No.21 of 2023 on the file of VIII Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. PSP Suresh Kumar Counsel for the Respondents Nos. 2, 3 & 4: Sri. P N Murthy Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri. Ithapu Subrahmanyeswara Rao CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO (SR): 40003 OF 2023 Petition under Section 115 of CPC, aggrieved by the orders dated 17/08/2023 passed by the Court of VIII Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada, in I.A. No.857 of 2023 in O.S. No.21 of 2023. Between: Duddu Raviteja, S/o. Meriyo, Aged about 37 years, Occ Private Employee, R/o. Flat No. 402, Mark Residency, Beside Sanjeevan Hostel, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/Defendant No.4 AND Bandla Venkata Siva Nageswar Rao, S/o.Veera Ragavaiah, Aged about . d.No 53-1-333, Main Road. Christurajapuram, Peda Bavi Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. % 1 53 years, R/o Center, Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Sharimila Akkamma Jesudasan, W/o M. Suneel Kumar, Aged about 57 years.R/o D.NO. 18-395-4, Flat No. 105 Resindency, Venugopal Nagar, Anathapur-515001. Joseph Jesudasan, Aged about 54 Ship, Near RIMS, Putiam 1st Floor, Brundavan 3. Joseph Sushanth Jesudasan, S/o R/o.D.No 85/413-311, STM Town years Palli, Sankara Puram, Cuddpah -516002. 4. Prathima Ignatius, W/o Ignatius Kumar, Aged about 52 Balakrishna Nayakan street Extesion, West Mambalam, 55/19, Chennai-600033. ...Respondent/Defendant Nos.1 to 3 14 NO: 1 OF 2023 in the circumstances stated Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the High Court may be pleased to against the orders dated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition file the CRP to the petitioner grant leave to 17/08/2023 in O.S. No.21 of 2023 on the file of Vlll Addl. District Judge Vijayawada, counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. P S P Suresh Kumar ; Sri. P N Murthy Counsel for the Respondents The Court made the foiiowing Common Order: % IN THE HIQH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010497942023 [3459] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2522, 2523 & 2525 OF 2023 & CIVIL REVISION PETITION (SR) No.40003 OF 2023 Between: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2522 OF 2023 1 DUDDU RAVITEJA, S/0. MERIYO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/0. FLAT NO.402, MARK RESIDENSCY, BESIDE SANJEEVAN HOSTEL, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1 BANDLA VENKATA SIVA NAGESWAR RAO, S/O.VEERA RAGAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/0. D.NO 53-1- 333, MAIN ROAD, CHRISTURAJAPURAM, PEDA BAVI CENTER, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2 SHARIMILA AKKAMMA JESUDASAN, W/0 M. SUNEEL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 18-395-4, FLAT NO.105, 1ST FLOOR, BRUNDAVAN RESINDENCY, VENUGOPAL NAGAR, ANANTHAPUR-515001. 3 JOSEPH SUSHANTH JESUDASAN, S/0 JOSEPH JESUDASAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O.D.NO 85/413- 311, (HIG-311), STM TOWN SHIP, NEAR RIMS, PUTLAM PALLI, SANKARAPURAM, CUDDPAH -516002. 4.PRATHIMA IGNATIUS, W/0 IGNATIUS KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 55/19, BALAKRISHNA NAYAKAN STREET EXTESION, WEST MAMBALAM, CHENNAI-600033 ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 JSJ CRP Nos.2522 2523 2525/2023 & CRP (SR) 40003/2023 lA No.1 OF 709-^ Pstition under Section circumstances stated in the affidavit fil^H^n the High Court may be pleased to stay all further Counsel for the petitioner Counsel for the respondent No 1 Kao Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 ■■ Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar ■ Sri I. Subrahmanyeswara ■ Sri P.N. Murthy The Court made the following COMMON drhfp 3 % JS,J CRP Nos;2522, 2523, 2525/2023 & CRP (SR) 40003/2023 Being aggrieved by the separate orders, dated 17.08.2023, passed Memo (GL) and different Interlocutory Applications in O.S. No.21 of 2023 by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayav^/ada (for short, ‘the trial Court’), the petitioner/defendant No.4 in the Suit proceedings filed four Civil Revision Petitions under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘the C.P.C’). in these For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred 2. to as per their ranks in the Suit. 3. The 1®* respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No.21 of 2023 before the trial Court for specific performance, to direct the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to register the sale deed in his favour in respect of plaint schedule property in performance of the agreement of sale, confirming the delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property and grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into or interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. 4. REVISION PETITIONS: (i) Civil Revision Petition No.2522 of 2023 has been filed assailing the impugned order in G.L. No.2416 of 2023 in O.S. No.21 of 2023, dated 17.08.2023, which was filed by the plaintiff on 21.07.2023 to withdraw the 4 Suit against defendant by and between the No.4, by compromising plaintiff and defendant Nos. the Suit process arrived at 1 to 3. (II) Civil Revision Petition (SR) No.40003 of 2023 in I.A. No.857 of 2023 i which was filed by the plaintiff has been filed in O.S. No.21 of on 21.07.2023 to plaintiff and defendants assailing the impugned order i 2023, dated 17.08.2023 record the terms of Nos.1 to 3. compromise between the (iii) Civil Revision Petition the impugned order i ■17.08.2023, which No.2523 of2023 has been filed assailing dated on 13.03.2023 to petition schedule and to take building and to file a in I.A. No.447 of 2023 iin O.S. No.21 of 2023 was filed by the defendant No.4 appoint an Advocate Commissioner, to inspect the property, to note down the existing physical features thereof necessary photographs reflecting the nature of the detailed report along with the sketch. (iv) Civil Revision Petition No.2525 of 2023 has been • .2023, Wh,ch was flied by the defendant No.4 on 21.07.2023 to aside the ex parte order, dated 14.06.2023, No.4 and to provide him filed assailing set passed against the defendant an opportunity to contest the suit. 5 JS,J CRP Nos.2522, 2523, 2525/2023 & CRP (SR) 40003/2023 THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF. IN BRIEF: 5. The above Suit was filed by the plaintiff against defendants Nos.1 contending that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Joseph Jesudasan, who constructed RCC building which consists of the ACC sheet shed. His wife to 4 ground and first floors along with an predeceased him on 16.08.2012. Subsequently, he died intestate on 15.04.2021, leaving the defendants Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiff entered into an Nos.1 to 3 for a valid sale consideration of Rs.57,00,000/- for purchase of agreement of sale with defendants the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff initially paid Rs.24,00,000/- to 11.02.2023. On 13.02.2023, the the defendants Nos.1 to 3 online on defendants ■ Nos.1 to 3 executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, receiving Rs.3,00,000/- in cash and after obtaining three cheques for towards balance of the sale consideration. As the Nos.1 to 3 failed to turn up for registration, the plaintiff issued instructions to his banker on 20.02.2023 to stop payment of the three Rs.30,00,000/- defendants cheques. On 21.02.2023, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants demanding to register the sale deed and confirm delivery of of the schedule property to the plaintiff. The defendant No.2, in his reply notice, stated that the defendants are ready to execute the Nos.1 to 3 possession 6 0^^ JSJ a further amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, in addition sale deed upon payment of to the cheques already issued. On 22.02.2023, when repairs in the plaintiff's schedule nearest relative of defendants demanded the workers the timely intervention of Suit. workers of the plaintiff were attending to property, the defendant No.4, who is the Nos.1 to 3, to stop the work. The i came with his followers and - issue was resolved due to nearby people. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the ® IHEVWIITEN statfmfmt The defendant No.4 i OF DEFENHAmt in his written statement submits father of the defendant Nos. that the suit is 1 to 3, Sri sale on Henry Mark and Duddu Mario executed a Will e-, after his death. Since enjoying the said house collusive and further states that the Joseph Jesudasan. executed a 31.07.1989, in favor of Sri Jesudasan possessory agreement of Ambrosio.' The 03.06.2003. which then, his son Duddu Mario said Jesudasan Henry Mark on came into force in 2008, /. Ambrosio has been property. The defendant No.4, obtained Municipal Plan the prevailing objections 31.07.1989, by paying a building application after demolishing the old building approval in favor of Joseph Jesudasan, i . had in view of possessory agreement of sale dated fee of Rs.98,834/-. to the 7 JS,J CRP Nos.2522, 2523, 2525/2023 & CRP (SR) 40003/2023 Now, under the guise of interim order obtained by the plaintiff, attempts are being made to dispossess the defendant No.4 and his tenants. The defendant submitted a report to the Machavaram P.S. on 02.03.2023, which was registered as Crime No.205/2023. This defendant submits that the plaintiff illegally and high-handedly occupied the house property belonging to the paternal aunt of this defendant. RECITALS OF SUIT PROCEEDINGS. 7. The trial Court, while granting an ex parte temporary injunction. issued notice to the defendants. Therein, defendant No.4 filed I.A. No.447 of 2023 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and the defendants Nos.1 to 3 filed their counter. The defendant No.4 was set ex parte on 14.06.2023. Thereafter, the parties filed a Memo in G.L. No.2416/2023 to withdraw the suit against defendant No.4 and filed I.A. No.857/2023 under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the CPC on 21.07.2023. Defendant No.4 filed a reply affidavit dated 21.07.2023, stating that the suit is collusive between the plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 to 3, and the defendants have no transferable interest over the said property. On 21.07.2023, defendant No.4 filed a written statement along with a petition in I.A. No.858/2023 under Order IX, Rule 7 and Section 151 of the CPC to set aside the ex parte order passed against him. By order dated 17.08.2023, the trial Court allowed the memo and the petition, permitting 8 JSJ the plaintiff to withdraw the suit accordingly allowed by recording reads as under; against Defendant No.4. the terms of the The suit compromise. The order was “'■) Since plaintiff has withdrawn as per order in G.L2416/2023the suit against 4**^ defendant and in view of fartc rr:~ T - ") That no bill of costs filed on either side." 8. THE iiviPunMFr> Aggrieved by the G L.No.2416/23 and I.A. of 2023 filed by the 4‘^ defendant! Court of VIII Additional has moved four different olthe trial cnilPT orders passed on 21.07.2023 in allowing No. 857/2023 and rei rejecting I.A. Nos.447 and 858 in O.S. No.21 of 2023 on the file of the the petitioner herein District Judge at Vijayawada, Civil Revisions Petitions, IS proposed to dispose of these a common order. all on the same grounds. Therefore, it i Petitions through Civil Revision 9. Heard Sri P.s.P Suresh Kumar, Sri Ithapu Subrahmanyeswara and Sri P.N. Murthy, learned perused the impugned orders. learned counsel for the petitioner; Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1, counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 4 and also 10. CONTENTION.S OF LEARMFn FOR THE PARTicc^- V. 9 JS,J CRP Nos.2522, 2523, 2525/2023 & CRP (SR) 40003/2023 The .petitioner’s counsel contends that the petitioner/defendant No.4 has been in peaceful possession and enjoynnent of the suit property. The plaintiff in collusion with the defendants Nos.1 to 3 has filed the suit, without appreciating this fact, the trial Court has allowed withdrawal of the suit against the 4^'' defendant. The counsel for the petitioner further argues that the mandatory requirements of Order XXI11 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. were not fulfilled. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Para Nos. 10 to 13 of a decision of this Court in M. Kuppuswamy Naidu v. His Holiness Sri Srimad Anhinava Ramanuja Brahma Thanthra Swathanthra Parakaia Swamiji Mathadhipathi of Paraka Mutt, Karnataka State, Mysore City & others\ The issue involved in the said decision is with regard to consideration of the application for impleading the strangers as parties to the Suit before a compromise is recorded. Conversely, learned counsel for the 1®‘ respondent/plaintiff has vehemently controverted the submissions made by the revision petitioner and has supported the impugned orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge. It has been argued that the Memo and Application under Order XXIII- Rule 3 CPC were moved before the trial Court by the 11. (1993) 1 ALT 343 10 JS,J respondent No.1 there seeking unconditional or legal impediment withdrawal of the suit, whereas was no factual to allow such withdrawal i/n accordance with the has also denied the allegations provisions of Order XXIII Rules 1 and 3 of CPC. He of fraud and submitted that these are false be dismissed and baseless. It has been with costs. In prayed that the Revision Petitions support of his contention. learned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i wherein the issue involved i in Kasturi lyyamperumal & Others^, IS whether a third party, as a independent title and possession Stranger to the contract claiming to have over the suit, is entitled to be added title and possession”. as a party defendant to decide the 12. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and stated that the i interference. have also supported the i are just and proper and impugned orders impugned orders needs no CONSIDERATION BY THF nrs, ipT. 13. The respondent No.1 /. approached the trial Court with CPC along with defendant No.4 Learned Additional District ^ (AIR 2005 (SC) 2813) re., the plaintiff iin Suit No.21/2023 an Application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of of Suit against to 3. the request and a Memo praying for the withdrawal and compromised the Suit with defendant Nos.1 Judge on 17.08,2023 allowed 11 JS,J CRP Nos.2522, 2523, 2525/2D23 & CRP (SR) 40003/2023 dismissed the Suit as withdrawn against defendant No.4 with no costs. Now, the controversy which is required to be resolved by this Court is as to whether the plaintiff can withdraw his Suit unconditionally, at any stage, at his will or there are any restraints for such withdrawal. In case the latter proposition is correct, then this Court will examine as to whether the learned Additional District Judge was justified in allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit unconditionally or not. To determine this aspect, it is advantageous to examine the provisions of Order XXI11 Rules 1 to 3 of CPC, which reads as follows: “ORDER XXlll Withdrawal and Adjustment of Suits; 1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim— (1) At any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim; Provided that where the plaintiff is a minor or other person to whom the provisions contained in Rules 1 to 14 of Order XXXll extend, neither the suit nor any part of the claim shall be abandoned without the leave of the Court. (2) An application for leave under the proviso to Sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend and also, if the minor or such other person is represented by a pleader, by a certificate of the pleader to the effect that the abandonment proposed is, in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor or such other person. (3) Where the Court is satisfied — (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of suit or part of a claim. It may, on such terms as it thinks fit grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject- matter of such suit or such part of the claim. (4) Where the plaintiff— (a) abandons any suit or part of claim under Sub-rule (1), or (b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in Sub-rule (3), he shall be .liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be precluded from 12 JS,J CRP Nos.2522 252'^ 2525/2023 & CRP (SR) 40003/2023 instituting any fresh suit i * part of the claim, permit one^of severS'plainMfs to'^aba'o'^ *° authorize the Court to under sub-rule (1) o to S av. .mf" " part of a Cairn. ‘/bout thernSor^tr;^^^^^^ .he‘=^oZrra fuir^^rreraSiSt^ri^jr lawful agreement or rnmnmmio f ^ wholly or in part by any parties] or where the defendant signed by the the whole or any part of the subleot Plaintiff in respect to shall order such aqreement the suit, the Court ISO s “‘^n'atsTmlri: oi'rsf^^rnrb Court shall decide the questfon but nnt w granted for the purpose of decdino Z o shall ... for reasons to be recorded think^fit^t unless the Court, [Explanation — An aqreernent nr ° adjournment.] voidable under the Indian ContraC AcM872'ra on872)" h“lf " he deemed to be lawful within the meaning If this Rul^] in respect of such subject-matter or such or the 14. From a perusal of the Rule 1 of CPC, it stage of the provisions of Sub-Section 1 of Order XXIII appears that the plaintiff can withdraw the suit at any proceeding against all unconditionally. Hence, filing a Memo lieu of Petition under Order XXIII or any of the defendants. to withdraw the Suit, particularly in Rule 1 of CPC is a common legal as specifically provided procedure. If the plaintiff fails to withdraw the Suit, by Sub-rule 3, he shall be barred from iinstituting a fresh Suit on the same of CPC, Suit can be withdrawn any time without permission of the Court but cause of action. Under Order XXIII, Rule 1 by the plaintiff at he cannot 13 % JS,J CRP Nos.2522, 2523, 2525/2023 & CRP (SR) 40003/2023 file a fresh Suit on the same subject matter unless permission was sought for filing a fresh one. Now, let me first examine the ratio decidendi of the judgment relied 15. upon by the revision petitioner in the instant case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court differentiated between a necessary party and a proper party to a lis. A necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed. A proper party is one whose presence is necessary for a complete and effective adjudication. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that in a Suit for specific performance, the primary focus is on the contract between the plaintiff and defendant; the presence of third parties claiming ownership is not required unless their rights are directly affected by the contract. In Kasturi (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court further emphasized that impleadment should not convert a specific performance Suit into a title dispute. Third parties could pursue their claims through separate proceedings. The decisions relied on by learned counsel for the parties are not applicable to the facts of the present case since both the decisions dealt with impleadment of a stranger who is not a party to the Suit. 16. 14 JS,J 17 The Hon’ble Supreme Singh and others^, plaintiff to prosecute the Suit the plaintiff, Court i in Anil Kumar Singh v. Vijay Pal held that the defendant has no right to compel the of the Suit sought by a Suit against him. by opposing withdrawal except to claim the cost for filing Kumar Singh (3 supra), it was held as under: In Anil .M tCht -3 permitted to file a fresh suit nn th the suit but was not only one person had filed the su f’and^ThV^r*^^^^^ Rule 1 was not attracted. sub-rule (5) of application under Sder'^^lM^SjlT’i Plaintiff files ^thdraw the suit. w^et^eMn f"it art he^ do so and in such case, the de endan^’h.c ^ objection to such prayer beina h, anv for paymen, of th'e’Js, foS byte 'plainur'"* an to ask as provided in sub rule (4). 25). The reason is that while makinn a prayer to withdraw the suit without asking^foTtytht morfcanTh^ withdrawal of tt .rpiSff'rtoseret^^or^rot 3U,. sough, by ,he plaintiff except totarth^ctfoT^r" against him. a suit 26) suit along with a prayer to gran h m oef '*''"^''^^"01 of the on the same subject matte? as S ^ 'rsoh suit then in such evint! The defenStf<3) Rule 1 made by the plaintiff. In such evTrt ill? efTfh^ r f’™''®'' as to whether the permission tn Ull ^ ^^^'d© should be granted to the plaintiff and provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 ^ as 27) Now coming to the fartc considered opinion that the Trial (A.D.J) were justified i of the case, we are of the norrv^ tt- Revision Court permitting the appellant in (plaintiff) to ^(2018) 12 see 584 15 JS,J CRP Nos.2522, 2523, 2525/2023 & CRP (SR) 40003/2023 withdraw the suit under sub-rule (1) of Rule 1. In other words, since the appellant had applied for withdrawal of the suit under Order XXlll Rule 1, the Trial Court was justified in permitting withdrawal of the suit subject to the appellant paying cost of Rs.350/- to respondent No.1 (defendant No.1). Such order, in our view, was in conformity with sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 and was rightly upheld by the Revision Court. (Emphasis supplied) Now, reverting to the facts of the case on hand, the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement sale against defendants Nos.1 to 3, who are the parties to the dispute. The 1 respondent/plaintiff, being the dominus litus, has every right to withdraw the suit filed by him. Furthermore, the scope of specific performance could be enlarged if a third person is added to the suit; the presence of the petitioner/defendant No.4 is not required, as he is not a party to the sale agreement. If the petitioner/defendant No.4 has any grievance or is aggrieved by the actions of the respondent/plaintiff and respondents Nos.2 to 4, his remedy lies elsewhere, but not in the suit filed by the 1 respondent/plaintiff. Thus, the trial Court has correctly exercised its discretion, and the impugned orders do not warrant any interference by this Court. 18. St St Accordingly, all these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No 19. order as to costs. 16 JS,J CRP Nos.2522, 2523 2526/2023 & CRP (SR) 40003/2023 Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIC^N^ICER 1. The VIII Addl. District Judge. Vijayawada, Krishna District, (with records if any) 2. The II Additional District Civil Judge, Vijayawada records if any) 3. One CC to Sri. PSP Suresh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. P N Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri. Ithapu Subrahmanyeswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra 7. Two CD Copies //TRUE COPY// To, Krishna District, (with Pradesh. SGM sree 1*’ HIGH COURT DATED: 17/07/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP NOS. 2522, 2523 AND 2525 of 2023 AND CRP(SR) No. 40003 of 2023 DISMISSING THE CRP’S WITHOUT COSTS