\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY. THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3295 OF 2023 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 beg to present the instant Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Court against the Order dated 02-02-2022 in lA No.511 of 2019 in O.S.No.113/2023 the file of the Court of XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasti, (old suit vide O.S.No.201/2016 on the file of the Court of V Additional on District Judge Court, Tirupati). Between: M.Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o M. Pedda Subba Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 73 years. Cultivation Residing at Guntakinda Palli, Srikalahasti Mandal Tirupati District, A.P. ...Petitioner/Plaintiff AND 1. K.Nagendra Kumar, S/o K. Chengaiah Naidu, Hindu, Aged about 63 years. Residing at D.No. 1- 1813, Jayaramarao Street, Srikalahasti Town Mandal, Tirupati District, A.P. ...Respondent/Implead Petitioner m w .. 2. K. Ananda Naidu, S/o K. Srinivasulu Naidu, Hindu, Aged about 60 years. Business, Residing Velampalyam, Srikalahasti Mandal, Tirupati District, A.P. / i ...Respondent/Defendant 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 of all further proceedings in O.S.No.113/2023 on the file of XII Additional District Judge Court, Srikalahasti, Tirupati District (Erstwhile Chittoor District), pending disposal of C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K MUNI REDDY BALA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: — The Court made the following: APHC010623172023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] u THURSDA Y, THE NINTH DA Y OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3295/2023 Between: ...PETITIONER M.venkata Subba Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT(S) K Nagendra Kumar and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K MUNI REDDY BALA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Court following: the made The HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.R.P.No.3295 of 2023 ORDER: This revision is filed questioning the order dated 02.02.2022 in l.A.No.511 of 2019 in O.S.No.113 of 2023 passed by the XII Additional District Judge, Srikal^hasti. The Petitioner is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale. Respondent No.1 filed an application to implead himself as party defendant to the suit. As per the claim of the Respondent No.1, he had filed O.S.No.51 of 2002 before the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti for recovery of money and the suit was decreed on 13.10.2003. Respondent No.1 filed E.P.No.26 of 2011 and the schedule property was brought to sale. The Respondent No.1 participated in the sale with the permission of the Court and became the successful bidder and the sale was knocked down in his favour for a sum of Rs.8,70,000/- on 30.04.2013 and the sale was confirmed on 27.10.2017 and the same was referred to the Sub-Registrar, Thottambedu on 28.11.2017 for making necessary entries in the register. As the Sub-Regi.strar, Thottambedu did not register the property, the Respondent made his enquiry and was informed of the suit proceedings in O.S.No.201 of 2016. Brief facts of the case: 2. While so. Thereafter, 2 It was in that context, Respondent No.1 filed the above application. Though the Petitioner opposed the same, the trial Court allowed the I.A. 3. t vide impugned orders. Hence, the present revision petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri A.Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav, learned counsel for the Petitioner and SriO.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents. Contentions: Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the plaintiff, who has filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale is the dominus litis and he cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law. He placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson and others^ to substantiate his 5. plea. Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that he had purchased the property through Court auction and being a bona fide purchaser, his right to enjoy the schedule property is being affected in view of the present suit. It is his further contention that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have colluded only to defeat the auction in favour of the 6. Respondent No.1, the present suit was filed. 7. Reasoning: The Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act') specifies persons against whom the relief can be sought by the plaintiff and Section 19 (b) of the Act provides for enforcement of the ' 2019 (5) ALD (SC) 166 L-. * 3 decree of specific performance against a subsequent transferee to the contract, except a transferee, who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contractor. In this case. Respondent No.1 seeks to come on record as he is a bona fide purchaser of the scheduled property in the auction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Gurmit Singh Bhatia’s case (1 8. supra) held that plaintiff is dominus litus in a suit for specific performance and he cannot be compelled to add parties against his wish. It was also observed that non-adding of parties is at the risk of plaintiff. The paragraph 5.6 of the said judgment is extracted below: 5.6. Therefore, considering the decision of this Court in Kasturi [Kasturi v. lyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733], the appellant cannot be Impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by the original plaintiffs for specific performance of the contract between the original plaintiffs and original Defendant 1 and in a suit for specific performance of the contract to which the appellant is not a party and that too against the wish of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs cannot be forced to add party against whom he does not want to fight. If he does so, in that case, it will be at the risk of the plaintiffs. 10. In view of the above cited judgment and Section 19 (b) of the Act, interest of the Respondent needs to be protected from any mischief. Therefore, while uphotding the order of the trial Court, it is made clear that the rights under the sale certificate in favor of the Respondent shall not be affected by virtue of judgment and decree in the suit in question unless it is 4 established in a competent proceedings that the plaintiff has a superior right by virtue of suit agreement of sale than the sale certificate Respondents ■I in favour of come under the exception provided under Section 19 (b) of the Act. The Respondent No.1 is at liberty to get the sale certificate registered. and the Respondent does not 11. With the above observation, the Civil of. No order as to costs. As stand closed. Revision Petition is disposed a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall Sd/-SHAIK MOHD RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 'i . SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. (with 2. The XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. 3. One CC to Sri K Muni Reddy Bala Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri O Udaya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 6. K. Ananda Naidu, S/o K. Srinivasulu Naidu, years. Business, Residing Velampalyam, Srikalahasti Mandal, Tirupati District, A.P. 7. Three CD Copies records if any) Hindu, Aged about 60 Pmg sree jti-.. S' f y high court DATED;09/01/2025 \v \ ORDER CRP.No.3295 of 2023 X 2 3 JAN 2025 \ ^ ^ . Current Section £fS^ATCV^^ ^ wSrlosh^"'"- I i