M. Seetharama Murti, J.

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the unsuccessful petitioners-plaintiffs is directed against the order, dated 20.04.2015, of the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal, passed in IA.No.128 of 2015 in OS.No.102 of 2011 filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ['the Code', for short] read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice requesting to permit the plaintiffs to bring on record the respondents 5 to 13/3rd parties as party defendants 5 to 13 in the suit and carry out the consequential amendments in the plaint.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri E. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners-plaintiffs, of Sri G. Tirupathi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 to 13, and of Sri T.V.P. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. I have perused the material record.

3. To begin with, it is to be noted that the plaintiff brought the suit for declaration of title of the plaintiffs in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2.33 guntas in Jazipet Jagir Village, Hanamkonda mandal, Warangal District, more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint and for recovery of possession of the said property. The defendants 1 to 3 are resisting the suit by filing a written statement. Defendant no.4 adopted the said written statement by filing a memo. After the trial has commenced, the plaintiffs filed the aforestated IA for impleadment of the proposed defendants. 1st defendant filed counter affidavit on behalf of the defendants 2 and 3. A counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the proposed defendants. On merits and by the orders impugned in this revision, the Court below dismissed the petition of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs are before this Court.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in support of the afore-stated request, in brief, is this:- The suit is brought in the month of September, 2011, for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant, who was examined as DW2, sold some property, on 15.05.2012, to Mohammad Afzali Khan/proposed 5th defendant. He did not disclose the said fact to the Court either in his pleadings or in his deposition. The 4th defendant sold some property to Mohammed Abdul Khadeer/proposed 6th defendant, Bommideni Mahesh Kumar/proposed 7th defendant, Vendi Kanakalaxmi/proposed 8th defendant, Shameem Sultana/proposed 9th defendant, Rahmathunnisa Begum/proposed 10th defendant, Eroju Purna Chary/proposed 11th defendant and Mohammed Khaseem/proposed 12th defendant in the months of May and August, 2012. The 4th defendant further executed an agreement of sale-cum-GPA in favour of the proposed defendant no.13 in the month of May, 2012. The 4th defendant executed registered documents in their favour during the pendency of the suit. He also did not inform the Court about the said sale transactions. Thus, the defendants and the proposed defendants are suppressing facts and are misleading the Court. The alleged registered sale deeds and agreement of sale-cum-GPA are void ab initio. The defendants 1 to 4 are not entitled to sell or transfer the suit schedule property to any persons including the proposed defendants till the final disposal of the suit. Hence, the present petition is filed for impleading the proposed defendants.

5. The only averments in the counter of the contesting proposed defendants is that pendente lite transferees are not necessary parties to a suit of the present nature and that they have purchased respective extents of land under registered sale deeds and that they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of any conflicting claims and hence, their interests are to be protected in accordance with law in case they are impleaded as parties to the suit.

6. The case of the contesting defendants as stated in the counter affidavit of the 1st defendant, in brief, is this: 'There are