CRP/2911/2025 of MOHAMMAD ABDUL SATTAR Vs GADEPALLI VASAVI LATHA on 6 November 2025

O R D E R:

Assailing the order dated 18.07.2025 passed in E.A.No.27 of 2019 in E.P.No.56 of 2014 in O.S.No.92 of 2008 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandigama, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead him as a party to the aforesaid E.P. was dismissed, the instant civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 7th respondent-Decree Holder.

3. Facts germane to dispose of the civil revision petition may briefly be stated as follows:

The 7th respondent herein has filed O.S.No.92 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, for specific performance of the contract, claiming that the defendants, by name Veluri Kamalamma, Gadepalli Venkata Sesha Rama Krishna and Gadepalli Chandra Mohan, have executed an agreement of sale dated 10.02.2006 in his favour with regard to the house property bearing Door No.18-83 situated at Nandigama Village and Mandal, Krishna District, and that

CMR,J C.R.P.No.2911 of 2025

they failed to execute a registered sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. The said suit was decreed on contest, vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2012. Thereafter, the 7th respondent filed E.P.No.56 of 2014 for execution of the said decree. During the pendency of the said E.P., the petitioner herein, who is a third party to the suit in O.S.No.92 of 2008 and E.P.No.56 of 2014, has filed a petition in E.A.No.27 of 2019 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead him as a party to the said execution proceedings, on the ground that the legal representatives of Veluri Kamalamma, who subsequently passed away, executed an agreement of sale dated 15.03.2011 in his favour and thereby, prayed the Court to implead him as a party to the said execution proceedings. The said petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner.

4. As can be seen from the facts of the case pleaded by both the parties, the agreement to sell executed in favour of the 7th respondent is prior in time. It was executed on 10.02.2006. The suit for specific performance was also filed in the year 2008. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner appears to have obtained an agreement of sale in his favour from the legal representatives of the original owner Kamalamma on 15.03.2011. Thereafter, in the year 2018, the

CMR,J C.R.P.No.2911 of 2025

petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandigama, after the suit in O.S.No.92 of 2008 was decreed in favour of the 7th respondent on 13.12.2012.

5. Considering the said facts and the series of events, the Executing Court dismissed the said petition filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. and did not permit the petitioner to be impleaded himself in the execution proceedings filed by the 7th respondent. It is brought to the notice of this Court that subsequent to the dismissal of the said petition, the Execution Petition filed by the 7th respondent was also allowed and the Court has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the 7th respondent.

6. The status of the petitioner is only that of a prospective vendee. The validity of the agreement to sell said to have been obtained by him from the legal representatives of the original owner has to be decided in the suit filed by him for specific performance, which is still pending adjudication. He did not acquire any title to the said property. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the Executing Court has rightly dismissed the petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner at the stage of execution of the decree that was passed in favour of the 7th respondent. When the agreement

CMR,J C.R.P.No.2911 of 2025

to sell obtained by the petitioner is of the year 2011 and when the suit filed by the 7th respondent was pending till December, 2012, the petitioner ought to have filed a petition to implead him in the said suit during its pendency. But, he did not take any such steps till the said suit was disposed of on 13.12.2012. It is only after the E.P. was filed by the 7th respondent for execution of the decree passed in his favour that the petitioner has filed the present E.A. in the year 2019. Having not chosen to file a petition for his impleadment in the suit during its pendency, he is not justified in filing a petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. in the execution proceedings. Therefore, the Executing Court has rightly dismissed the said petition and this Court finds no legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order. Thus, the revision petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 07.11.2025 IBL

CMR,J C.R.P.No.2911 of 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2911 of 2025

Dt: 07.11.2025 IBL