According to the petitioner/third party, she has purchased the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 26.12.2002 and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Further, petitioner also filed suit in O.S.No.1 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Court, Nellore for specific performance of agreement of sale and the said suit is pending. While that being so, the respondents 1 and 2 filed suit in O.S.No.141 of 2007 against respondents 3 and 4 for recovery of Rs.25,000/- per month from 16.9.2005 till delivery of possession of plaint schedule property as per the terms of lease deed dated 16.9.2005. In the said suit, respondents 1 and 2 also filed I.A.No.100 of 2008 under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 94(e) of CPC for appointment of Receiver to take possession of plaint schedule property and to conduct leasehold auction for vegetable market and to deposit the amount pending disposal of the suit and the said I.A. was allowed by order dated 16.9.2008. According to the petitioner, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the order dated 16.9.2008 appointing receiver would adversely affect her interest and she will be deprived of her possession over the property. Therefore, she is a proper and necessary party to come on record and contest the suit. Hence, she filed I.A.Nos.162 and 163 of 2008 to implead her as party respondent in I.A.No.100 of 2008 and defendant in the main suit, which were dismissed by order dated 27.8.2008. Being aggrieved by the said orders, petitioner filed the present C.R.P.Nos.3859 and 3959 of 2008 respectively. Petitioner also filed C.R.P.No.4378 of 2008 seeking leave of the Court to challenge the order passed in I.A.No.100 of 2008 dated 16.9.2008 for appointment of Receiver.
