1. This revision is preferred by the proposed party, who sought impleadment in a suit, being O.S.No.38 of 2006, for partition, as defendant No.24 vide I.A.No.1161 of 2010, which was rejected by the Court below, under order dated 17.02.2011, on the ground that the transaction in his favour is hit by lis pendens and his interest is already covered by the stand taken by vendor, hence, he is not a necessary party to the suit. That order is questioned in this revision.

2. I have heard Mr. S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Prasad, learned counsel for respondents 20 to 25 and other learned counsel representing other respondents.

3. The necessary facts are that respondents 1 to 8 herein are the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit for partition and the other contesting defendants with whom the plaintiffs claim equal share. Some of the purchasers from the parties are already impleaded in the suit, as defendants 1 to 22. The petitioner herein claims that he purchased Ac.0.60 cents of land in Sy.No.908/1A/2A/1 on 26.09.2007 from one Salam Bala Subba Reddy. It is stated in the affidavit that the father of the petitioner’s vendor had earlier purchased the suit land on 18.11.1963 from Ambavaram Akaiah, who was the ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants. Petitioner, therefore, seeks impleadment in the suit as defendant No.24 in the suit.

4. The aforesaid application was contested by respondent No.25, who is defendant No.17 in the suit, primarily, on the ground that Ambavaram Akaiah, from whom the petitioner is tracing title, himself had no title, except for Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.908/1. It was stated that he had sold Ac.0.50 cents to one Sanapureddy Pedda Konda Reddy in 1959 and the Government had acquired Ac.0.50 cents and the remaining extent of Ac.0.50 cents was in possession and enjoyment of Ambavaram Rama Krishna Reddy, who constructed a residential house in a portion and the remaining portion is used as hayrick yard and as such, no land is left with the Ambavaram family to be sold to the father of the petitioner’s vendor. The application for impleadment was, therefore, opposed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, points out that the assessment of the Court below that the vendor of the petitioner is on record is factually incorrect and secondly, the reasoning of the Court below that merely because the petitioner’s transfer is hit by lis pendens, he is not entitle to be impleaded is also erroneous.

6. Per contra, Mr. R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents 20 to 25, submitted that the very claim of the petitioner to any part of Sy.No.908/1 itself is doubtful in view of lack of title of Ambavaram Akaiah, through whom the petitioner traces title. He also submitted that the suit is still pending and preliminary decree is yet to be passed. The impleadment of unconcerned parties, at this stage, would unnecessarily protract and delay the disposal of the suit and as such, the petitioner’s application was rightly rejected. Alternatively, the learned counsel submits that if at all the petitioner feels that any equities need to be worked out on the basis of title claimed by him, the petitioner’s application in final decree proceedings may be considered at later stage.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in A. NAWAB JOHN v. V.N. SUBRAMANIYAM (2012 AIR SCW 4248) in support of the proposition that application for impleadment by pendente lite purchaser should normally be allowed or considered liberally.

8. Mr. R. Prasad, learned counsel for respondents 20 to 25, on the other hand, placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in JAYARAM MUDALIAR v. AYYASWAMI (AIR 1973 SC 569) which interpreted the principles behind the concept of pendente lite purchaser under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the said provision is not to be used to defeat the just and equitable claim, but the Court may bind the said purchaser by the