M.S.K. Jaiswal, J.

This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 16.11.2015 in I.A. No. 660/2015 in O.S. No. 61/2011 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, by and under which, the learned Judge allowed the application filed by the 3rd parties/respondents 2 to 17 to come on record as defendants 2 to 17.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 61/2011 for declaration of title and for possession of the schedule property. In the said suit, the court below vide orders dated 12.02.2013 in I.A. No. 2674/2011 granted status quo and also vide orders dated 03.03.2012 in I.A.No. 2675/2011 appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and note down its physical features. While so, the respondents 2 to 17 filed I.A. No. 660/2015 seeking permission to come on record as defendants 2 to 17 in the said suit, stating that they have purchased the schedule property from the defendant-Bodda Jagadambha under registered sale deeds vide Doc. Nos. 4667/2013 to 4672/2013, dated 23.11.2013 and they came to know the pendency of the suit between the petitioner/plaintiff and the defendant with regard to schedule property and hence they claim that they are necessary parties to the suit.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed counter stating that during pendency of the suit, that too, while the status quo order was in force, the schedule property was sold by the defendant-Jagadamba in favour of respondents 2 to 17 and hence the respondents 2 to 17 will not accrue any right over the schedule property and hence, they are not necessary parties to the suit.

5. After hearing both sides, the Court below, while observing that the suit itself is filed for declaration and for possession of schedule property and now the implead petitioners/third parties were stepped into the shoes of the defendant having purchased the schedule property, and if the suit is decreed, the doctrine of lis pendense would apply and automatically the sale deeds would become null and void, and the question as to whether the plaintiff has title or whether the defendant has got title to the schedule property is to be decided in the suit, allowed the application, impleading the respondents 2 to 17 as defendants 2 to 17 in the suit. Questioning the correctness of the said order, the present revision is filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the proposed parties who are shown as respondents 2 to 17 herein are all the subsequent purchasers from the 1st respondent/defendant during the subsistence of the orders of status quo and therefore, they cannot be impleaded. The learned counsel relied upon the judgement of this Court in Ramesh Chawla v. N. Srihari and others 2005 (3) ALD 4 in support of his contentions.

7. On the other hand, the proposed parties submit that they have purchased different bits of plots in the land which is the subject matter of the suit from the 1st respondent/defendant under registered instruments unaware about pending dispute and that it is they who were in possession of the property. It is further submitted that the suit is for declaration and recovery of possession and since the lands are in their possession they are necessary parties and behind their back, the petitioner/plaintiff cannot obtain a decree and try to dispossess the proposed parties. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and future litigation in the matter, it is submitted that respondents 2 to 17 being the subsequent purchasers and being in possession of the property in dispute, they are necessary parties and therefore, the trial Court has properly appreciated the aspect and impleaded them.

8. The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No.61/2011 for declaration in respect of the plaint schedule property which comprises of an extent of Ac.1.89 cents in L No. 365/1 and Ac.11.15 cents in Rs. No. 365/2, si