APHC010566772024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: V. Kishore Vadlamudi Venkata Rao and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M DHANA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORDER : Heard Sri M.Dhana 2. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/ third party. 3. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 1125 of 2018 before the V Additional Civil Judge ( 1 C.R.P.No.3149 of 2024) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3149/2024 ...PETITIONER AND Vadlamudi Venkata Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: Heard Sri M.Dhanaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/ third party. respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 1125 of 2018 before the V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada, seeking the (RNT,J C.R.P.No.3149 of 2024) [3299] ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) counsel for the petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 1125 of 2018 before Junior Division), Vijayawada, seeking the 2 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.3149 of 2024) ejectment of respondents 2 to 9 herein/defendants from the plaint schedule property, along with a direction to vacate the property and deliver its possession to the 1st respondent/plaintiff. 4. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1223 of 2024 for his impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stating that the 4th defendant in O.S.No.1125 of 2018 (5th respondent herein) had executed a sale agreement dated 17.07.2009 in his favour, and based on this agreement, the petitioner had filed O.S.No.76 of 2024 against the said 4th defendant as in O.S. No. 1125 of 2018. 5. The learned Court rejected the application by order dated 11.11.2024. 6. Challenging the order dated 11.11.2024, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 5th respondent herein (4th defendant in O.S.No.1125 of 2018) executed a sale agreement dated 17.07.2009. The petitioner also filed O.S. No. 76 of 2024 for specific performance of the sale agreement against the 5th respondent, and so the petitioner was a necessary party to be impleaded in O.S.No.1125 of 2018, the suit filed by the 1st respondent. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.3149 of 2024) 9. The learned Court has observed that the sale agreement dated 17.07.2009 is an unregistered document. The same does not confer any right upon the petitioner/third party to seek impleadment in the suit filed by the 1st respondent against the other respondents for their ejectment. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the sale agreement was unregistered. Moreover, the suit itself was filed in the year 2024, by the petitioner against the 5th respondent, which does not establish as to how the petitioner’s presence was required or was necessary in O.S.1125 of 2018 for the effective adjudication of the dispute involved in O.S.No.1125 of 2018. 10. The Court finds that even otherwise, the alleged unregistered sale agreement is of the year 2009. The petitioner herein filed the suit in the year 2024, i.e., after about 17 years and immediately after filing the suit, filed the I.A.No.1223 of 2024 for his impleadment, which appears to be an afterthought and to delay the proceedings of the suit filed by the 1st respondent against respondent Nos.2 to 9. 11. I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Court. 12. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. 4 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.3149 of 2024) No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date :04.02.2025. RPD. 5 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.3149 of 2024) 393 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (DISMISSED) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3149 OF 2024 Date :04.02.2025 RPD.