ORDER
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of the plaint schedule property (suit property) executed by the first respondent in his capacity as the holder of an earlier agreement of sale in respect of the suit property belonging to Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao and also in the capacity as the General Power of Attorney of Velagapudi Seshagiri. Rao, who is said to have died even prior to the filing of the suit. It is to be noted that the plaint is silent about Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao being the owner of the suit property and reads as if first respondent himself is the owner of the suit property. In view of the proposals to acquire the plaint schedule land for construction of a thermal power station, second respondent also is made a party to the suit.
2. After filing of the suit revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 274 of 1995 seeking leave of the Court to implead the daughter of Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao (3rd respondent) as a defendant in the suit in her capacity as the legal representative of Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao. The said petition was dismissed, as per the order dated 3-9-2001, inter alia on the ground that there is no allegation in the plaint about the suit property being the property of Seshagiri Rao. Thereafter, revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 160 of 2002 seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint by introducing a paragraph in the plaint stating that first respondent as General Power of Attorney and as the holder of a possessory agreement of sale in respect of the suit property from Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao entering into sale agreement with him, which was allowed inspite of opposition by the first respondent. Thereafter, revision petitioner again filed LA. No. 159 of 2002 to implead the third respondent as third defendant in the suit, which was dismissed by the order under revision. Hence this revision.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since LA. No. 274 of 1995 filed to implead the 3rd respondent as 3rd defendant was dismissed mainly on the ground that the plaint not disclosing the ownership of Seshagiri Rao over the suit property. When that omission is supplied by seeking amendment of the plaint, the Court below ought to have allowed the petition to implead the third respondent as a party to the suit, and also was in error in dismissing the petition on the ground that the order in LA. No. 274 of 1995 operates as res judicata.
4. It is well known that an agreement of sale even if it is coupled with a power of attorney, does not convey title of the property agreed to be sold to the agreement holder cum power of attorney and the title to the property only vests with the executant of the agreement of sale. The fact that first respondent entered into an agreement of sale with the revision petitioner on behalf of Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao, as his General Power of Attorney holder, is admitted by way of amendment to the plaint. It is well known that the owner of the property agreed to be sold is a necessary party to the suit. Since the real owner Seshagiri Rao died even prior to the filing of the suit in 1994, revision petitioner could have impleaded the 3rd respondent as a party defendant at the time of filing of the suit. The application to implead her as a party to the suit was dismissed several years prior to the filing of the present LA. under revision. In fact the suit against third respondent is hopelessly barred by time by 2002 in which year the second petition to add her as a party is filed, in view of Section 21 of Limitation Act. For that reason alone the petition to implead third respondent is liable to be dismissed.
5. Though strictly speaking an order in LA. No. 274 of 1995 may not operate as res judicata, filing of a second petition for the same relief adding the third respondent as a party to the suit, when similar petition was dismissed earlier would but be an abuse of process of Court and hence is liable to be dismissed on that ground as held in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar . Merely because petitioner, by way of an amendment, pleaded in the plaint that Velagapudi Seshagiri Rao, father of the third respondent was the owner of the suit property, subsequent to the dismissal L.A. No. 274 of 1995, revision petitioner would not acquire any fresh or new right to implead the 3rd respondent as a party to the suit after the period of limitation.
6. All the above apart question of granting specific relief to the revision petitioner may not arise because the land is already acquired by the Government for thermal project and so I find no merits in the revision petition.
7. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed.