CRP/1571/2025 of M/S VEERA INFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs DUGGINENI VAMSI KRISHNA on 6 April 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 19.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.251 of 2025 in O.S.No.11 of 2024 by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, at Srikalahasthi.

2. The petitioner is the defendant, first respondent is the plaintiff and second respondent is the proposed defendant in O.S.No.11 of 2024.

3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S.No.11 of 2024 against the defendant for recovery of sale consideration amount paid by him to the defendant under suit agreement to sell dated 05.01.2020 contending that the subject property of the agreement to sell was sold away by defendant to others and hence the defendant has to return back the advance purchase money paid under the RC,J

suit agreement to sell together with interest and damages. The defendant filed petition vide I.A.No.251 of 2025 under Order-1, Rule-10 of Code of Civil Procedure praying the Court to implead the proposed defendant as defendant no.2 to the suit. The plaintiff resisted the relief sought in the petition by filing counter contending that the proposed defendant not being a party to the suit agreement to sell is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. The learned trial Judge upon considering the material available on record and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the petition. The said dismissal order has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Sri J.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff. Despite served with notice, respondent no.2 did not choose either to appear or make his appearance through counsel.

5. Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the trial Court and grounds of this Revision Petition would contend that the plaintiff had never received any consideration under suit agreement to sell and the same is a forged and fabricated document. He would further contend that initially Samanvaya Developers started residential layout project in the subject land but due to financial problems they could not complete it and approached the plaintiff firm, which took over the project, paid the amount to RC,J

the landowners and completed it and there were financial dealings and transactions between the proposed defendant, who is one of the developers of Samanvaya Developers and the plaintiff and hence the proposed defendant who know about the financial dealings of the firm with the plaintiff is a necessary and proper party. He would further contend that unable to comprehend that the proposed defendant is a necessary and proper party to the suit, whose presence is essential for effective adjudication of the lis, erroneously dismissed the petition without assigning cogent and valid reasons and thus the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. On the other hand, Sri J.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the trial Court would contend that the proposed defendant not being a party to the suit agreement to sell is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit and the learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed the petition and the said dismissal order does not require interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The petitioner/ defendant in a suit filed for refund of the sale consideration paid under a suit agreement to sell filed the petition under RC,J

Order-1, Rule-10 of CPC to add the proposed defendant as defendant no.2 to the suit contending and that a firm namely Samanvaya Developers of which the proposed defendant is one of the developer initially started a residential layout in the name of ‘Signature Gardens’, however due to financial problems they could not pay amount to landowners and obtain sale deeds in their favour and therefore, they approached the defendant and the defendant paid the amount and completed the project and that there were financial dealings between the plaintiff and Samanvaya Developers of which proposed defendant is one of the developers of the firm that initially started the project, the inclusion of proposed defendant as a party since he knows the transactions between the plaintiff and Samanvaya Developers is a necessary and proper party.

9. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the consideration paid under the suit agreement to sell executed by the defendant in his favour.

10. According to the defendant, since the proposed defendant knows the financial dealings and transactions between Samnavaya Developers and the plaintiff, he is a necessary and proper party to the suit. Admittedly, the proposed defendant is not a party to the said agreement to sell and his presence would neither facilitate to resolve the issues involved in the suit nor would effectively and completely dispose of the matter. If at all the revisionist wants to elicit the financial transactions between the erstwhile firm that RC,J

initially took up the project and the plaintiff that would substantiate his defence, he can examine the proposed defendant as a witness and for that purpose, a third party to the agreement to sell cannot be added as a party to the suit. Therefore, as rightly held by the learned trial Judge the proposed defendant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit and accordingly, rightly dismissed the petition. The said dismissal order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and as such does not require interference of this Court. The Civil Revision Petition being meritless deserves dismissal.

11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 7TH April, 2026.

RR