ORDER : 1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India this revision is filed by the sole defendant in the suit whose application to implead a third party/respondent herein was negatived by the learned trial Court. 2. Respondent No. 1 herein is the plaintiff in the suit. 3. O.S. No. 34 of 2016 is a suit filed before Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, wherein the plaintiff sought for permanent injunction against the defendant and his men from alienating the remaining parts of the plaint schedule property and for costs and such other reliefs. The sole defendant in the suit filed his written statement. Suit went for trial. During the pendency of the said trial, defendant in the suit filed I.A. No. 321 of 2017 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead Sri Sadhu Ramana Murthy as one of the defendants and array him as defendant No. 2 in the suit and direct the plaintiff to amend the plaint accordingly. This impleadment is necessary in the ends of the justice. To that application of the defendant, plaintiff who was shown as respondent No. 1 filed his counter. The proposed party made appearance and filed his counter. On enquiry, by the impugned Order dated 05.12.2017, the learned Additional District Judge, dismissed the petition. It is against that Order the present revision is filed. 4. From the averments in the plaint and the averments in the written statement a few facts that have come up between the parties are to be noticed. The plaintiff, the defendant, Sri T. Dosareddy and Sri K. Satish Reddy have got acquaintance among themselves. All of them are engaged in real estate business and purchased property and work out for lay outs and sell the plots. Together they raised a venture called Meher Brindavanam. It seems that their joining together is not by any particular written partnership deed. However, they seem to have come together and floated that venture. It is in the context of those facts, certain disputes arose between two out of them who are arrayed as parties to the suit. The allegations in the plaint indicate that under different sale deeds these four people purchased properties from different persons. Commonality in these transactions is that for each sale deed two out of four of them happened to be purchasers. The allegations in the plaint indicate that under different sale deeds these four people purchased properties from different persons. Commonality in these transactions is that for each sale deed two out of four of them happened to be purchasers. It is in that process there was one sale deed under which certain extent of land was purchased by the plaintiff and defendant together. The plaintiff is not a party to the rest of the sale deeds. While these things stood there, the defendant seems to have obtained a General Power of Attorney from another individual by name A. Amaravathi concerning another property. The allegation is that showing that G.P.A. the defendant started selling away the properties from the lay out that was floated by all the four individuals. With a view to inhibit the defendant from going ahead with any further alienations the suit for permanent injunction was filed. In the written statement, defendant admitted purchase of property by him along with plaintiff under one registered sale deed and thereafter denied the rest of the allegations leveled by the plaintiff. He stated that plaintiff had no role in the transactions and in the ‘Meher Brindavanam’ lay out all the plots were already sold out. Out of envy plaintiff came up with this false suit and he sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The above rival pleadings indicate that between the parties the only dispute is whether concerning plaint schedule properties alienations could be affected independently by each of the parties or collectively by both the parties or both the parties together with their two other friends. No other questions do arise by virtue of the pleadings set out and available in the suit. 6. It was in such suit, the defendant had come to move an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. saying that pending trial of the suit the plaintiff sold out 30 plots to Sri Sadhu Ramana Murthy. Therefore, the purchaser should be impleaded so as to know whether he is a benefited purchaser or not etc. The said Sadhu Ramana Murthy in his counter questioned the correctness of the prayer for his impleadment. The plaintiff as first respondent in the petition challenged the need for impleading Sri Sadhu Ramana Murthy. 7. Therefore, the purchaser should be impleaded so as to know whether he is a benefited purchaser or not etc. The said Sadhu Ramana Murthy in his counter questioned the correctness of the prayer for his impleadment. The plaintiff as first respondent in the petition challenged the need for impleading Sri Sadhu Ramana Murthy. 7. On hearing the rival submissions and considering the material on record the learned trial Court took the following view which is extracted here: “The primary object of Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure code is to bring before the Court at one and the same time all the persons interested in the dispute so that all the controversies in the suit may be finally determined once for all in the presence of all the parties without delay, inconvenience and expenses of the several actions, trials and inconclusive adjudication. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction only. It is not a suit for declaration. Therefore, there are no grounds to allow the present petition.” 8. Questioning the correctness of that Order this revision is filed wherein the facts that are available from the pleadings and the petition and counter are narrated and then it is stated that trial Court erroneously dismissed the petition. The view of the trial Court that the suit being not one for declaration of title and the suit being only for perpetual injunction no impleadment was necessary and that view is incorrect. 9. As against this, the learned counsel for respondents submits that for a decision in the nature of the dispute between the parties in the suit the presence of proposed party is totally unnecessary and therefore the view that was taken by the trial Court is completely in accordance with law and warrants no interference. 10. Therefore the point that falls for consideration is: In the given facts of the case, failure to implead a third party to a suit for injunction is resulting in injustice deserving interference in this revision? 11. POINT: Learned counsel for revision petitioner, in support of his contentions argued citing precedent. That shall be noticed now K. Chella Thangam vs. Jesintha Mary. That was a case for permanent injunction between the parties. 11. POINT: Learned counsel for revision petitioner, in support of his contentions argued citing precedent. That shall be noticed now K. Chella Thangam vs. Jesintha Mary. That was a case for permanent injunction between the parties. While that was pending certain third parties to the suit came up with petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking for impleadment stating that under various registered sale deeds they had already become owners of the properties and they have been in possession and their impleadment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Trial Court dismissed the petition as one that was belated. While deciding the revision, the Hon’ble Madras High Court considered certain relevant facts and noticed that concerning ownership of the properties the claim of the plaintiff and the claim of the impleading petitioners have got nexus and even from the averments in the plaint itself one could see semblance of the rights of the impleading petitioners and there was also a contention in the written statement about non-joinder of necessary parties and it was found impleading parties are none other than mother and other legal heirs of one of the brothers in the family and without their presence effective adjudication could not be made. In such circumstances, since there was dispute to the title that was there, their Lordships took the view that the impleading petitioners were necessary parties. 12. Vasavi Kanyaka Seva Trust vs. District Collector, 2000 (2) ALT 645 (SB). In that case, this Court took view that Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. has to be liberally interpreted and even in a suit for injunction where rival claims as to title to suit properties are there, third parties could be impleaded. However, this Court further laid down the rule stating that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances available therein as against the pleas set up by the parties. In a suit where rival parties claimed independent titles and the prayer in the suit is for injunction the scope of the suit certainly gets widened. In such case third parties who claimed title can be impleaded in the suit. 13. In Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhapur, AIR 1999 SC 976 . In a suit where rival parties claimed independent titles and the prayer in the suit is for injunction the scope of the suit certainly gets widened. In such case third parties who claimed title can be impleaded in the suit. 13. In Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhapur, AIR 1999 SC 976 . That was a case where properties covered by the suit were purchased by third parties and their impleadment was thought necessary to decide the question whether the sales were affected on committing contempt and in disregard to orders of subsisting injunction and whether those purchasers are benefited transferees was found necessary. Therefore, their impleadment was permitted. That was a case where the suit for maintenance and also for creation of charge over certain ancestral properties. It was in that context of facts and circumstances such ruling was made. 14. It is on the strength of these rulings, the learned counsel for revision petitioner submits to this Court that failure of the trial Court to implead the proposed party/Respondent No. 2 is erroneous and should be interfered with. Having considered all these submissions and facts on record and the rulings cited, this Court finds that the discretion exercised by the trial Court is inconfirmity with facts and law and has not resulted in injustice and does not require any interference. The reasons for decision on the part of this Court have to be now stated. 15. The defendant in the written stated that all the plots in the venture called Meher Brindavanam were already sold out and nothing subsisted. However, in his petition filed I.A. No. 321 of 2017 he stated that to him and the plaintiff together 75 plots fell to their share in that venture and they together sold out 72 plots much earlier to the suit and between them there are three more plots remaining jointly. He then stated that just before cross examining PW-1, he came to know about plaintiff selling away 30 plots. The one and only fact for consideration for the trial of the suit is whether the plaint schedule properties are jointly owned by parties or not. That is the only real matter in dispute. As per the allegations in the plaint, defendants sold out certain properties earlier to the institution of the suit. Those purchasers are not parties to the suit. That is the only real matter in dispute. As per the allegations in the plaint, defendants sold out certain properties earlier to the institution of the suit. Those purchasers are not parties to the suit. If the sales made by the plaintiff which are alleged in the petition for impleadment are incorrect necessary legal initiatives are possible for anyone who perceives that such sales are invalid. A third party purchaser is not a necessary party so far as the existing issues that are cropped up between parties in the suit is concerned. In fact the proposed third party himself resisted his impleadment. The presence of third party does not in any way lend assistance to the Court in finding out between the parties as to who is entitled to alienate the properties. 16. During hearing of the arguments, orders dated 27.06.2016 in I.A. No. 326 of 2016 in O.S. No. 34/2016 are brought to my notice. That was a petition seeking interim injunction concerning three items of the petition schedule property wherein the plaintiff sought for the interim relief of preventing the defendant from alienating them pending suit. The learned Additional District Judge, partly allowed that petition and granted interim injunction only concerning Item No. 1 and refused the relief concerning Item Nos.2 and 3. In the present case, there is no counter claim. Whether the sales that are allegedly made by the plaintiff pending suit are hit by Section 52 of The Transfer of Property Act is a different matter for consideration. Such alienations were allegedly made by plaintiff in whose favour the interim injunction concerning Item No. 1 of the plaint schedule is subsisting. These facts make the matter very clear that the intending purchaser could neither be called a necessary party nor a proper party. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court in refusing to grant impleadment is in accordance with facts and law. There is no merit in this petition. The point is answered against the revision petitioner. 17. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 05.12.2017 of learned Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989-cum-Additional District Judge, Srikakulam in I.A. No. 321 of 2017 in O.S. No. 34 of 2016. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.