1. This application is filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to implead the persons named therein as respondents 2 to 6 in the appeal.

2. Heard Sri P.V.Vidya Sagar for the appellant/petitioner and Sri K.V.Nageswara Rao for 1st respondent.

3. The petitioner is the appellant/plaintiff in the appeal. He filed O.S.No.100 of 1986 for specific performance of agreement of sale Ex.A-1 dt.12-02-1986 executed in his favour by 1st respondent in respect of an extent of Ac.4-00 cents of agricultural land out of Ac.7.80 cts. in Sy.No.398 of Settipalli village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District.

The 1st respondent/defendant admitted the execution of Ex.A-1, but opposed the grant of relief of specific performance. Ultimately, after trial, the suit was dismissed with costs.

4. Challenging the same, A.S.No.454 of 1997 has been filed in this Court by the appellant/plaintiff.

5. A.S.M.P.No.241 of 2012 is filed by the appellant contending that on 13-11-1997 this Court granted an injunction in C.M.P.No.5825 of 1997 restraining the 1st respondent from alienating the suit schedule property for a period of six weeks; that it was made absolute on 28-01-1998; that 1st respondent sold Acs.3-00 cents under registered sale deed dated 03-07-2006 (document No.3104/2006) in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3; that under another registered sale deed dt.18-08-2007, the 1st respondent sold Ac.4-86 cents to the same persons; both the extents are contiguous to each other; that these alienations were made in violation of order of injunction granted on 13-11-1997 in C.M.P.No.5825 of 1997, which was made absolute on 28-01-1998; although an application in A.S.M.P.No.626 of 2010 was filed to punish the 1st respondent, the said application was dismissed on 26-04-2011 observing that the said order shall be without prejudice to any right of the petitioner to avail any other remedy available to him under law; that subsequently respondents 2 and 3 sold Ac.1-50 cents (out of Ac.3-00 cents purchased by them under registered sale deed dt.03-07-2006) in favor of 4th respondent under registered sale deed dt.05-12-1997 and the balance extent of Ac.1-50 cents in favour of 5th respondent under another sale deed of the same date; that through the General Power of Attorney N.Gangi Reddy, they sold half of the extent of Ac.4-86 cents (purchased by them under registered sale deed dt.18-08-2007) to the 6th respondent under another registered sale deed dt.03-12-2007; an extent of Ac.1-00 cents out of the suit schedule property forms part of the extent purchased by 6th respondent; that these sales were affected without seeking leave of the Court and they are not valid transactions; that the purchasers are necessary and proper parties to the appeal and they may be impleaded as respondents 2 to 6 in the appeal for effective adjudication of all the questions/issues in the appeal. The counsel for petitioner relied on Durga Prasad v. Deep Chand (AIR 1954 SC 75), Ramesh Chandra Chandiok v. Chuni Lal Sabharwal (AIR 1971 SC 1238) and Dwarka Prasad Singh v. Harikant Prasad Singh (AIR 1973 SC 655).

6. Notice was ordered on this application to the proposed parties. Notices were served on the proposed respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6. As regards 4th respondent, notice was taken out by substitute service and he was set ex parte by order dt.19-02-2013. In spite of service of notice on the proposed respondent Nos.2 to 6, there is no representation on their behalf at the time of hearing of this application.

7. The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit dt.23-04-2012 opposing this application and contended inter alia that it is not maintainable; that the petitioner has no locus standi to file it; there are no merits in the appeal and even the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limini; any observations made by this Court in its order dt.13.11.1997 referred to above, cannot be made basis for filing the application; that he was not aware of the sales made by respo