ORDER : These two revision petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against separate orders dated 20.07.2018 of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District, dismissing I.A.Nos.236 & 238 of 2017 in O.S.No.19 of 2006 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. C.R.P.No.6115 of 2018 relates to I.A.No.238 of 2017 which was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for impleading (i) The Sub Registrar, Kovur, Nellore District, and (ii) The Indian Overseas Bank, Hyderabad, represented by its Senior Manager-cum-Authorized Official, as defendants 8 and 9 respectively in the suit. C.R.P.No.6096 of 2018 relates to I.A.No.236 of 2017 which was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’), read with Rule 28 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice, requesting to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint consequent to impleadment of the defendants 8 and 9. 2. Heard Mr. P.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel representing Mr. K. S. Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff. None appeared for the respondents/defendants. Since these two revision petitions are interrelated, they were heard together are being disposed by a common order. 3. The following are the proposed amendments: I. Incorporation of the names of the proposed defendants 8 and 9 in the cause title after the name of Allampati kanth as follows: “8. The Sub Registrar, Taluq Office Compound, Kovur village, Post and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 9. The Indian Overseas Bank, Basheer Bagh Branch, Hyderabad, rep. By its Senior Manager-cum-Authorized Official.” II. Incorporation of the following in 3rd line in paragraph no.2 at page number no.2, as follows: “8th defendant is the Sub-Registrar, Taluq Office Compound, Kovur village, Post and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 9th defendant is The Indian Overseas Bank, Basheer Bagh Branch, Hyderabad, represented by its Senior Manager-cum-Authorized Official. III. By its Senior Manager-cum-Authorized Official.” II. Incorporation of the following in 3rd line in paragraph no.2 at page number no.2, as follows: “8th defendant is the Sub-Registrar, Taluq Office Compound, Kovur village, Post and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 9th defendant is The Indian Overseas Bank, Basheer Bagh Branch, Hyderabad, represented by its Senior Manager-cum-Authorized Official. III. Incorporation of para No.11(b) at page No.4 after para No.11-a to be incorporated in terms of order of amendment in C.F.No.4197/2012 dated 17-04-2012 as follows: “11-b. During pendency of the said suit, the proposed defendants 8 and 9 in collusion with 2nd defendant deliberately, high handedly and with a mala fide intention to defraud the Hon’ble Court and also plaintiff as well further created a fictitious loan by entering into champertious oral agreement and thereby created the purported equitable mortgage dated 30-05-2012 bearing document No.913/2012 for alleged sum of Rs.1,53,00,000/- (Rupees one crore fifty three lakhs only) behind the back of plaintiff and without his knowledge on the property of plaintiff which is in dispute due to fraudulent activities and collusive activities of defendants jointly and severally committed by them upon due deliberations and consultations. The plaintiff came to know the same on 24-01-2017. The plaintiff questioned the same by issuing legal notice dated 04-02-2017 by way of registered post with acknowledgment due. Defendants 8 and 9 received the said notice. Defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7 by managing the concerned respective postman got the said notice returned with false and concocted endorsement. The purported loan and its consequential equitable mortgage is sham, collusive, fraudulent and nominal transaction without parting of any consideration there under actually. The purported loan is not binding on the plaintiff. The purported equitable mortgage is hit by Doctrine of Lis Pendens since it is stated to have entered fraudulently, deliberately, with a mala fide intention to defraud the plaintiff that too pendente lite of the said suit. The plaintiff is being not a party to the purported loan, it will not bind on the plaint schedule property and also to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is being not a party to the purported loan, it will not bind on the plaint schedule property and also to the plaintiff. The purported General Power of Attorney dated 10.12.2008 bearing document No.2262/2008 with alleged possession stated to have executed in favour of 6th defendant and the purported sale deed dated 11-11-2011 bearing document No.2859/2011 stated to have executed in favour of 7th defendant and the purported equitable mortgage dated 30-05-2012 bearing document No.913/2012 stated to have executed by 7th defendant in favour 9th defendant allegedly registered by 8th defendant are all sham, collusive, fraudulent, nominal, illegal and void documents. Therefore, there is no need to seek specific cancelation thereof. As such, they are not binding on the plaintiff and his plaint schedule property.” IV. Incorporation of para no.12 (after the proposed amended portions, in pursuance of directions in C.F.No.4197/2012 after the expression “lis pendens” as follows: “When during pendency of the said suit, 7th defendant in collusion with defendants 8 and 9 further created a fake loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on 30-05-2012 in the form of purported equitable mortgage bearing document No.913/2012 and secreted the same behind the back of plaintiff. When plaintiff came to know the same on 24-01-2017 and questioned the same by issuing legal notice dated 04-02-2017, when the defendants did not issue any reply for the same till date. It all arose.” V. Incorporation of the same amendments in I.A.No.31 of 2016 in O.S.No.19 of 2006 as well. VI. To permit such other and further amendments as are deemed fit and proper for just determination of the above suit.” 4. The facts averred by the petitioner which are necessary for consideration, in brief, are as follows: The plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of registered sale deed, dated 20.01.2006 as void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant, by misrepresenting the Court, filed I.A.No.73 of 2009 and took back his sale deed, alleged to have been executed by the 2nd defendant in his favour on 20.01.2006, under the guise of obtaining loan and subsequently, said to have created a General Power of Attorney-cum-sale in favour of the 6th defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant, by misrepresenting the Court, filed I.A.No.73 of 2009 and took back his sale deed, alleged to have been executed by the 2nd defendant in his favour on 20.01.2006, under the guise of obtaining loan and subsequently, said to have created a General Power of Attorney-cum-sale in favour of the 6th defendant. The defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7, in collusion with each other and with the instigation of and in collusion with the proposed defendants 8 and 9, further created a fake equitable mortgage, dated 30.05.2012 in the name of M/s Swini Auto Mobiles Pvt. Limited for alleged sum of Rs.1,53,00,000/- behind his back and without the knowledge of the plaintiff on his property deliberately, highhandedly and with a mala fide intention to defraud the Hon’ble Court and also the plaintiff. On coming to know of the same on 24.01.2017, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendants 7 and 8. Though the notice was received, they did not issue any reply. In view of the illegal and fraudulent transactions created by the proposed defendants 8 and 9, the plaintiff is constrained to file the instant petitions. The consequential amendments would not change the original cause of action or the nature of the suit. The proposed amendment is very much essential for determination of the real controversy between the parties. (b) The 6th defendant filed counter opposing the petition in I.A.No.236 of 2018. According to him, he purchased the plaint schedule property under an agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney dated 10.12.2008 and in turn, as a general power of attorney agent sold the property to the 7th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 11.11.2011, for a valuable consideration and since then, the 7th defendant is in possession and enjoyment. The petition is filed with a view to drag on the proceedings. There are no reasonable grounds to allow the amendment petition. (c) The 8th respondent also filed counter opposing I.A.No.238 of 2017 submitting that this defendant is not at all a necessary party to the proceedings and mere non-issual of reply to the notice does not amount to admitting the contents of notice and that this defendant has nothing to do with the averments or allegations in the affidavit. (c) The 8th respondent also filed counter opposing I.A.No.238 of 2017 submitting that this defendant is not at all a necessary party to the proceedings and mere non-issual of reply to the notice does not amount to admitting the contents of notice and that this defendant has nothing to do with the averments or allegations in the affidavit. Further, it is stated that unless notice under Section 80 CPC is issued to the proposed parties, petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is not maintainable 5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contended that the order of the Court below is cryptic and without reasons. He would further submit that for effective adjudication of the suit, subsequent purchasers are to be brought on record at any stage of the proceedings for effective adjudication of the lis. The Court below failed to take into consideration the admission made by the defendants in their counter that they had entered into the disputed transactions. 6. In this regard, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant provisions, which read as under: Order VI Rule 17: Amendment of Pleadings.--- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” Order 1 Rule 10: “Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.—(1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.—Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant (5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (XV of 1877), section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons.” Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice: An application for amendment under Order 1, Rule 10, Order VI, Rule 17, or Order XXII of the Code, shall also contain a prayer for all consequential amendments. The Presiding Officer shall reject the application if it is not in accordance with the law or these rules. Provided that verbal corrections may at any time be made in pleadings with permission of the Court.” 7. As per the contention of the revision petitioner, the mortgage deed was executed on 30.05.2012, whereas, these petitions were filed in the year 2017. However, since the trial is at the threshold and the evidence is at the stage of cross-examination of PW1, impleadment of party or amendment of the plaint is not barred completely. As per the contention of the revision petitioner, the mortgage deed was executed on 30.05.2012, whereas, these petitions were filed in the year 2017. However, since the trial is at the threshold and the evidence is at the stage of cross-examination of PW1, impleadment of party or amendment of the plaint is not barred completely. It is only to be shown by the revision petitioner that even at that juncture, the impleadment of the party and the proposed amendments which are consequential thereto, are permissible within the scope of the provision under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code and Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. It is pertinent to mention that the relief claimed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code in this case is not an independent relief claimed, but it is consequent to the relief claimed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. As per Rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice, the general rule is that separate applications shall be filed for distinct reliefs. But Rules 28 and 29 thereof provide exceptions to the general rule. As per Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice noted supra, both reliefs ought to have been sought in the same petition, but two separate applications have been filed. It is a curable or ignorable irregularity. It is noticed that when an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code is filed, sometimes, neither consequential amendment is prayed at all nor adequate amendment is sought. Amendment in the pleadings consequent to adding or deletion of party is very much required as mere impleadment/deletion of party does not serve any purpose in the absence of any plea or relief as against such party. Thereby, there is either prejudice due to inadequate or improper pleadings or declining the relief even in otherwise deserving case. Therefore, whenever such petition is filed, at the threshold, before registering such application, it is to be examined whether the petition is in consonance with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice. 8. The plaintiffs filed both the petitions in view of alienation of the property by mortgage in favour of the proposed 9th defendant pending the suit. Since the suit is for cancelation of the sale deed, the interests of the proposed 9th defendant would be affected by the relief claimed in the suit. 8. The plaintiffs filed both the petitions in view of alienation of the property by mortgage in favour of the proposed 9th defendant pending the suit. Since the suit is for cancelation of the sale deed, the interests of the proposed 9th defendant would be affected by the relief claimed in the suit. The proposed 9th defendant is a proper and necessary party for complete adjudication of the dispute. However, the proposed 8th defendant has no interest in the lis. Since the proposed 8th defendant is an authority to register the documents, it discharged its duty. Merely because a document was registered, the proposed 8th defendant has no interest in the adjudication of the lis in the suit. Thus, the proposed 8th defendant is not a necessary or proper party. The trial Court failed to notice that the interests of the proposed 9th defendant is involved in the lis and thereby, unless the proposed 9th defendant is permitted to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions. Just because, the proposed 9th defendant is governed by the doctrine of lis pendens, it is not an absolute bar to bring such party in the suit as a defendant. On the other hand, it would enable the Court to completely adjudicate the dispute. 9. Order 1 Rule 10(1) of the Code allows impleadment of parties ‘at any stage of the suit’, subject to the conditions stated therein. However, in total disregard of the provision, the trial Court erroneously and out rightly rejected the relief in the petition, observing that the suit is coming up for cross-examination of PW1 and after commencement of trial, the plaint shall not be amended. It has not examined whether the case of the petitioner falls within the conditions in Rule 10(1) of the Code. The petitioner issued notice on coming to know about the pendency of mortgage and later filed these petitions. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, as the proposed 9th defendant is a proper and necessary party, it is just and necessary to permit the revision petitioner to implead the proposed 9th defendant as defendant no.8 in the suit and to make proposed consequential amendments but with suitable modifications, as mentioned in this order in the later part. 11. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, as the proposed 9th defendant is a proper and necessary party, it is just and necessary to permit the revision petitioner to implead the proposed 9th defendant as defendant no.8 in the suit and to make proposed consequential amendments but with suitable modifications, as mentioned in this order in the later part. 11. In the result, C.R.P.No.6115 of 2018 is partly allowed by setting aside the order dated 20.07.2018 in I.A.No.238 of 2017 and consequently I.A.No.238 of 2017 is allowed by permitting the petitioner therein to implead the Indian Overseas Bank, Hyderabad as the 8th defendant. 12. In the result, C.R.P.No.6096 of 2018 is partly allowed by permitting the petitioner therein to make the following amendments: (i) Incorporation of the name of the defendant no.8 in the cause title after the name of Allampati Srikanth as follows: “8.The Indian Overseas Bank, Basheer Bagh Branch, Hyderabad, rep. by its Senior Manager-cum-Authorized Official.” (ii) Incorporation of the following in 3rd line in paragraph no.2 at page number no.2, as follows: “8th defendant is The Indian Overseas Bank, Basheer Bagh Branch, Hyderabad, represented by its Senior Manager-cum-Authorized Official.” (iii) Incorporation of para No.11(b) at page No.4 after para No.11-a to be incorporated in terms of order of amendment in C.F.No.4197/2012 dated 17-04-2012 as follows: “11-b. During pendency of the said suit, the Sub-Registrar, Taluq office Compound, Kovur village, post and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and defendant 8, in collusion with 2nd defendant deliberately, high handedly and with a mala fide intention to defraud the Hon’ble Court and also plaintiff as well further created a fictitious loan by entering into champertious oral agreement and thereby created the purported equitable mortgage dated 30-05-2012 bearing document No.913/2012 for alleged sum of Rs.1,53,00,000/- (Rupees one crore fifty three lakhs only) behind the back of plaintiff and without his knowledge on the property of plaintiff which is in dispute due to fraudulent activities and collusive activities of defendants jointly and severally committed by them upon due deliberations and consultations. The plaintiff came to know the same on 24-01-2017. The plaintiff questioned the same by issuing legal notice dated 04-02-2017 by way of registered post with acknowledgment due. Defendant 8 and the Sub-Registrar received the said notice. Defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7, by managing the concerned respective postman, got the said notice returned with false and concocted endorsement. The plaintiff came to know the same on 24-01-2017. The plaintiff questioned the same by issuing legal notice dated 04-02-2017 by way of registered post with acknowledgment due. Defendant 8 and the Sub-Registrar received the said notice. Defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7, by managing the concerned respective postman, got the said notice returned with false and concocted endorsement. The purported loan and its consequential equitable mortgage are sham, collusive, fraudulent and nominal without parting of any consideration there under actually. The purported loan is not binding on the plaintiff. The purported equitable mortgage is hit by doctrine of lis pendens, since it is stated to have been entered fraudulently, deliberately, with a mala fide intention to defraud the plaintiff, that too pendente lite of the said suit. The plaintiff, being not a party to the purported loan, it will not bind on the plaint schedule property and also the plaintiff. The purported General Power of Attorney dated 10.12.2008 bearing document No.2262/2008 with alleged possession stated to have been executed in favour of 6th defendant and the purported sale deed dated 11-11-2011 bearing document No.2859/2011 stated to have been executed in favour of 7th defendant and the purported equitable mortgage dated 30-05-2012 bearing document No.913/2012 stated to have been executed by 7th defendant in favour of 8th defendant allegedly registered by the Sub-Registrar are all sham, collusive, fraudulent, nominal, illegal and void documents. Therefore, there is no need to seek specific cancelation thereof. As such, they are not binding on the plaintiff and his plaint schedule property.” (iv) Incorporation of para no.12 (after the proposed amended portions, in pursuance of directions in C.F.No.4197/2012 after the expression “lis pendens” as follows: “When during pendency of the said suit, 7th defendant in collusion with defendant 8 and the Sub-Registrar, further created a fake loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on 30-05-2012 in the form of purported equitable mortgage bearing document No.913/2012 and secreted the same behind the back of plaintiff. When plaintiff came to know the same on 24-01-2017 and questioned the same by issuing legal notice dated 04-02-2017, when the defendants and the Sub-Registrar did not issue any reply for the same till date. It all arose.” (v) Incorporation of the same amendments in I.A.No.31 of 2016 in O.S.No.19 of 2006 as well. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.