ORDER : This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order, dated 23.08.2021, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.901 of 2019 in O.S.No.626 of 2016 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC read with Section 151 CPC to implead the petitioner as 2nd plaintiff in the suit and permit to carry out the proposed consequential amendment. 2. Heard Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/third party and Ms. Vinodini Rooth, learned counsel representing Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defendant. 3. The revision petitioner has filed petition in I.A.No.901 of 2019. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the defendant. For the purpose of convenience, hereinafter, the revision petitioner is referred as ‘third party’ and the respondents 1 & 2 are referred as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendant’ respectively. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule premises of first floor of house property and for costs. The defendant filed the written statement averring that while she was looking for a rented house, on 27.07.2015, she met Mr. Krishna who represented that one Sudhakar is his uncle’s son who is living abroad and entrusted him (Mr. Krishna) to look after the plaint schedule house, and further that Mr. Krishna along with his family members including Smt. Singotamma were staying in the ground floor of the building in the plaint schedule property and offered the first floor of the suit schedule house property on a monthly rent of Rs.6,500/-, with an advance amount of two months’ rent, and accordingly, on 01.08.2015, the defendant took the 1st floor of the schedule house on rent for a period of three years under an oral tenancy and the tenancy is renewable for further periods. The defendant is regularly paying monthly rents and the charges of electricity consumption. It is further averred that the rent for the property was paid on 05.01.2016 for the month of December, 2015 and Mr. Krishna has acknowledged the receipt of the advance amount and the rents by issuing receipts to the defendant. It is further averred that in the last week of January, 2016, Mr. It is further averred that the rent for the property was paid on 05.01.2016 for the month of December, 2015 and Mr. Krishna has acknowledged the receipt of the advance amount and the rents by issuing receipts to the defendant. It is further averred that in the last week of January, 2016, Mr. Krishna, who lives in the ground floor portion told the defendant that he is also relative of Sudhakar and that on 03.01.2016, Krishna along with his family members, namely, Pedda Singotam, Nadipi Singotam and Chinna Singotam brought some unknown middle aged person to the defendant’s portion and introduced him as Mr. Bala Naidu and that he was permitted to use the up-stair portion also and further that the defendant should not pay rents to Mr. Krishna and thereafter for several days, the plaintiff frequently trespassed into upstairs portion and used to drink alcohol, dine and create nuisance and abusing the defendant and her daughter in filthy language and terrorizing them, disconnecting water supply to her portion etc. Therefore, the defendant objected the unnecessary interference and asked him to confine himself to ground floor only. Though the defendant informed the same to the plaintiff about Mr. Krishna and others’ interference, he did not take it seriously, and thereby, having left with no other option, the defendant got issued legal notice, dated 03.02.2016, to Mr. Krishna, but no reply was received. As such, the defendant filed a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.124 of 2016 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. She further categorically stated that the defendant is ready to pay rent on condition that the plaintiff has to pay the loss incurred by the defendant due to the act of the defendant (sic., plaintiff) and his deployed persons. 5. Later, the third party filed I.A.No.901 of 2019 to add her as the 2nd plaintiff stating that she purchased the house property from the plaintiff under a registered sale deed bearing document No.12048/2018, dated 28.09.2018, and that when she went to the house for taking possession of it, the defendant obstructed the delivery of the property to her, and therefore, there was exchange of notices between her and the defendant and consequently, she is constrained to file this petition to permit her to be impleaded as the 2nd plaintiff. 6. 6. The petition was opposed by the defendant by filing counter denying the averment of the petitioner/third party and further contending that the plaintiff is yet to prove ownership of the property and without proving ownership, created the sale deed with bad intention to force the defendant to vacate the house property and the sale deed is not valid in the eye of law and not binding on the defendant. It is also stated that the defendant gave proper reply to the notices issued by the third party. There is no need to implead the third party in the suit and the consequential amendments pleaded are inconsistent and not on correct lines. The defendant prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. The plaintiff did not choose to file any counter. 8. After hearing the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the defendant denied title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule house in the written statement; that the relationship of landlord and tenant should be proved in a suit for eviction and the quantum of rent and mesne profits will be decided; that if the petitioner/third party is added as 2nd plaintiff, she would plead that she is the owner of the suit schedule house and then Court has to frame an issue with regard to her title in the property; that the transferee cannot prosecute the suit on the cause of action relating to non-payment of rents for the period prior to transfer of property and the transferee cannot prosecute or continue the suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiff/ vendor, and therefore, if the third party is added as 2nd plaintiff, no purpose would be served and it widens the scope of the suit. The trial Court further observed that in an eviction suit, impleding a third party who has been claiming title over the schedule house amounts to conversion of the suit from the relief of eviction to the relief of declaration of title and that the cause of action changes the nature of the suit and the scope of the suit widens. It further observed that the third party may file a separate comprehensive suit if she has any right over the suit schedule house, and that the decree can be passed even in the absence of third party. 9. It further observed that the third party may file a separate comprehensive suit if she has any right over the suit schedule house, and that the decree can be passed even in the absence of third party. 9. Having been aggrieved of the order, the third party contended in the revision that the trial Court did not appreciate that the scope or the nature of the suit cannot be changed by impleading her and that she is a necessary party to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that the present plaintiff alone cannot initiate the execution proceedings against the defendant, since he is no more a owner of the schedule property after selling the same to the third party and further that no prejudice is going to happen to the defendant as the third party would step into the shoes of the plaintiff as a subsequent purchaser, since there is no bar to purchase the property during the pendency of the suit for eviction. It is also contended that since the trial Court has not yet commenced trial and issues framed already are sufficient, mere adding the third party as 2nd plaintiff does not result in any other consequences. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner stepped into the shoes of the sole plaintiff and is entitled to be brought on record in view of the circumstances stated in the petition as well as grounds of revision. He further stated that the trial Court has not noticed that the petitioner is a necessary party to take the matter forward. He placed reliance on the decision of this High Court in Behra Bhaskara Rao v. Kameswari Enterprises, 2013 Law Suit (Hyd) 5 : 2014(2) ALT 457 wherein paras 25 and 30 are relevant for the purpose of this case. In the cited decision, the decision of the Supreme Court in Surjit Singh and others v. Harbans Singh and others [ 1995 (6) SCC 50 ] was cited at para 25, which reads as follows: “25. In support of his contention, he has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited 4th supra, wherein it was held as under: The legislature while enacting Rules 3, 4 and 10 has made a clear-cut distinction. In support of his contention, he has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited 4th supra, wherein it was held as under: The legislature while enacting Rules 3, 4 and 10 has made a clear-cut distinction. In cases covered by Rules 3 and 4, if right to sue survives and no application for bringing the legal representatives of a deceased party is filed within the time prescribed, there is automatic abatement of the suit and procedure has been prescribed for setting aside abatement under Rule 9 on the grounds postulated therein. In cases covered by Rule 10, the legislature has not prescribed any such procedure in the event of failure to apply for leave of the court to continue the proceeding by or against the person upon whom interest has devolved during the pendency of a suit which shows that the legislature was conscious of this eventuality and yet has not prescribed that failure would entail dismissal of the suit as it was intended that the proceeding would continue by or against the original party although he ceased to have any interest in the subject of dispute in the event of failure to apply for leave to continue by or against the person upon whom the interest has devolved for bringing him on the record. 7. Under Rule 10 Order 22 of the Code, when there has been a devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against persons upon whom such interest has devolved and this entitles the person who has acquired an interest in the subject-matter of the litigation by an assignment or creation or devolution of interest pendente lite or suitor or any other person interested, to apply to the court for leave to continue the suit. But it does not follow that it is obligatory upon them to do so. But it does not follow that it is obligatory upon them to do so. If a party does not ask for leave, he takes the obvious risk that the suit may not be properly conducted by the plaintiff on record, and yet as pointed out by Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Moti Lal v. Karrbuldin (MANU/PR/0019/1897 : ILR (1898) 25 Cal 179 : 24 IA 170 : 1 CWN 639 (PC)) he will be bound by the result of the litigation even though he is not represented at the hearing unless it is shown that the litigation was not properly conducted by the original party or he colluded with the adversary. It is also plain that if the person who has acquired an interest by devolution, obtains leave to carry on the suit, the suit in his hands is not a new suit, for as Lord Kingsdown of the Judicial Committee said in Prannath Roy Chowdry v. Rookea Begum MANU/PR/0006/1859: (1857-60) 7 MIA 323), a cause of action is not prolonged by mere transfer of the title. It is the old suit carried on at his instances and he is bound by all proceedings up to the stage when he obtains leave to carry on the proceedings.” At para 30 of the cited decision, it is observed that on account of purchase of suit schedule house property, interest in the said property is devolved on the proposed respondents and it is permissible for them to apply to this Court to seek to come on record of the three Appeal Suits as respondents under Order 22 Rule 10 of C.P.C. 11. Therefore, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that though the present petition was filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, the relief claimed is to be granted under appropriate provision of law, viz., Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, which deals with devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit. 12. Therefore, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that though the present petition was filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, the relief claimed is to be granted under appropriate provision of law, viz., Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, which deals with devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit. 12. Keeping in view the above decision which was passed in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in (i) Pannala Renuka and another v. Kavali Venkataiah and others [2007 AIR (AP) 46]; (ii) Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and others [ 1996(5) SCC 539 ], and, (iii) Surjit Singh and others v. Harbans Singh and others [ 1995 (6) SCC 50 ], this Court is of the view that the above decision squarely applies to the present case insofar the principle is concerned. 13. The apprehensions raised by the trial court about the change in the nature of cause of action, scope of trial etc. are unwarranted. Whatever right or title existed in the sole plaintiff would pass on to the third party after the transaction of sale is duly proved. The defendant will have an opportunity of filing the written statement basing on which an appropriate issue would be framed and evidence would be led. As rightly contended by the third party, in the absence of third party, the plaintiff who has lost interest in the property due to sale, may not continue with the proceedings in the suit and thereby the interests of the third party would be put to hardship. Since the suit for eviction is not filed on the ground of bona fide personal requirement alone, but on the ground that the defendant and her family members are creating nuisance and the defendant committed default in payment of rents from January 2016 till the date of filing of the suit, the observation that the third party cannot prosecute the suit is unsustainable. It is sufficient for the plaintiff or the third party to establish the default was committed as on the date of filing of the suit to maintain the suit. The fact of default can be established by leading proper evidence. Even post suit default, if any, also will have bearing on the case. Therefore, change in the title pending the suit, is not fatal to the suit. The fact of default can be established by leading proper evidence. Even post suit default, if any, also will have bearing on the case. Therefore, change in the title pending the suit, is not fatal to the suit. Whatever right exists in the plaintiff would pass on to the third party on proper transfer of title. As such, in the light of the foregoing discussion, the revision petitioner/third party is a necessary party to the suit. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 14. Before concluding, it is ad rem to note regarding the consequential amendments needed which read as follows: “Schedule of consequential amendment: Substitute plaintiff No.1 for the plaintiff in the following paras of plaint: Para 3(a), b(b), d(e), para 4, f(g), para 5(h) and wherever required para (i) plaintiff No.1 plaintiff No.2 as the case may be for the plaintiffs.” The proposed amendment is desperately inadequate as the amendment to the plaint to include the pleadings regarding purchase of property by the third party/proposed 2nd plaintiff pending the suit and other facts which are stated in the affidavit in support of the present petition are not sought as a consequence of her impleadment as 2nd plaintiff. It is well settled law that no evidence can be led without there being a pleading. As such, whenever a party is to be impleaded, it is required to seek all proper, adequate and necessary amendments to the plaint or proceedings so that evidence can be let in during the course of trial or enquiry. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, omissions and delay, Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, 1980, mandates that an application for amendment made under Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 or Order 22 CPC shall also contain a prayer for all consequential amendments and that the Presiding Officer shall reject the application if it is not in accordance with the law or these rules, though as a normal rule different reliefs cannot be sought in a single petition by virtue of Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice. However, it is a very common vexed lapse noticed in many petitions that either no consequential amendment is sought or inadequate, improper or inappropriate amendments are sought in the applications referred in the Rule 28. However, it is a very common vexed lapse noticed in many petitions that either no consequential amendment is sought or inadequate, improper or inappropriate amendments are sought in the applications referred in the Rule 28. In fact, such amendment or lack of consequential amendment is causing delay and much trouble to the parties and courts. In spite of mandatory condition in rule 28, petitions under Order 1 and Order 22 CPC are being registered without proper verification at the threshold. Just because some or other amendment is mentioned as consequential amendment, that may not be sufficient or proper. Many times, whenever any party is proposed to be impleaded, amendment to short and long cause title only are sought, without seeking any further amendment to the pleadings with regard to the party to be impleaded. All such facts are usually stated only in the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking impleadment, but not as proposed consequential amendments. Since facts stated in the affidavit do not form part of the pleaedings in the main proceedings, it is very essential to specifically seek them. Just for the sake of complying Rule 28, improper or inadequate consequential amendments are sought, at times, like in the present case. It is sometimes asked by petitioner(s) that permission may be given to make consequential amendments without revealing what it/they is/are. It cannot be treated as due compliance of Rule 28. Once pleadings or averments are filed before Court, no part of it can be amended without permission of court. Unless what amendment is to be made is stated, nobody knows what will be amended. Under the guise of amendment, it is possible to make amendments which are otherwise not permissible. Therefore, unless the specific amendments proposed are stated in the petition, court or other party will not have an opportunity to verify whether such amendments can be permitted or not. If impleadment of a party whose presence in a suit or proceedings is necessary, is refused on the technical ground for not asking any consequential amendment or asking only improper amendment, a matter cannot be completely adjudicated and dispute cannot be resolved. As such, it is very much essential to check the petition(s) mentioned in rule 28 before registering it and see that all proper consequential amendments are sought in the same petition and register the petition only if adequate and proper amendments are proposed. As such, it is very much essential to check the petition(s) mentioned in rule 28 before registering it and see that all proper consequential amendments are sought in the same petition and register the petition only if adequate and proper amendments are proposed. Rule 28, unlike other rules or statutes which refer to 'court', casts duty on the 'Presiding Officer'. So it is felt necessary to instruct all the judicial officers in this state to ensure thorough and proper checking of the petition before registering the petition to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, delays and unwilling dismissal. 15. In the present case, it is not enough to carry out the amendments sought in the petition. It is necessary to seek amendment to incorporate the transfer effected pending the suit and also proper relief in favour of the plaintiffs in view of change of title. If the decree is granted only in favour of the 1st plaintiff even after impleadment of the 2nd plaintiff, it would cause difficulty for the 2nd plaintiff to get the decree executed and even the 1st plaintiff may or may not cooperate in pursuing the suit and as such, appropriate amendment in the prayer is also required, besides other pleadings and also in the cause title, short and long which are not asked at all. 16. Since already very long time was spent on this proceeding, any step, other than granting proper remedy in this case, would cause further delay without serving any real purpose. So, as Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits a Court to allow all such amendments as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, the petitioner herein can be permitted to take necessary consequential amendments to the plaint, or else, the purpose of allowing third party to be impleaded as 2nd plaintiff would be rendered futile. The permission granted in this order shall not be taken as precedence. 17. The permission granted in this order shall not be taken as precedence. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 23.08.2021, passed in I.A.No.901 of 2019 in O.S.No.626 of 2016; and, I.A.No.901 of 2019 is allowed granting liberty to the revision petitioner/third party to seek appropriate amendments to the plaint, as indicated hereinabove, subject to the condition that the revision petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the defendant within four weeks from the date of this order failing which the petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.