ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/proposed parties under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Razole, in I.A.No.568 of 2014 in O.S.No.31 of 2005 wherein and whereby learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/proposed parties under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to implead them as defendants 13 to 16 in the suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff.

2. The case of the petitioners before the trial Court in brief is that they are third parties in the proceedings and they are well acquainted with the facts of the case. They submit that first petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0.80 cents in R.S.No.76/1 of Tatipaka under registered sale deed dated 10.08.2009 from T.Venkateswara Rao (R5/D4). It is the contention of the petitioner that after purchase of site by the first petitioner from R5/D4, she sold 0.04 cents of site to the first petitioner under registered sale deed dated 27.04.2011 and thereafter, the first petitioner also sold 734 cents to the 2nd petitioner under registered sale deed dated 13.06.2011. They further submit that the first petitioner sold another Ac.0.25 cents to one Rekapalli Tataji under registered sale deed dated 02.04.2011, who in turn sold Ac.0.07¾ cents to third petitioner under registered sale deed dated 13.06.2011 and thereafter, the said Tataji also sold Ac.0.16 cents to fourth petitioner under registered sale deed dated 07.03.2013. The main contention of the petitioners is that they being bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration of portion of plaint schedule property are proper and necessary parties to the suit. They pray to implead them as defendants 13 to 16.

3. For which, first respondent/plaintiff filed counter before trial Court denying the averments in the affidavit of the petitioners/proposed parties. It is the contention of the first respondent/plaintiff that petitioners are not bona fide purchasers and they have got knowledge about the pendency of the suit, but purposefully and intentionally entered into litigation and filed the petition with a view to delay and drag on the proceedings. He submits that suit is coming up for arguments after closure of evidence on both sides and then petitioners came up with this petition by creating documents in their favour, which are during the pendency of the suit, which is hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act.

He prays to dismiss the petition.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners by observing that petitioners have purchased suit schedule property subsequent to suit agreement of sale dated 22.10.1999, which is also subsequent to filing of the suit, thereby dismissed the petition.

5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by learned trial Judge, proposed defendants have filed present revision petition stating that orders passed by trial Court are contrary to law and probabilities of the case. They submit that they are proper and necessary parties for effective adjudication of the matter, which the learned trial Judge failed to consider. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and D4, who lost interest in the plaint schedule property may not contest the suit in a proper manner, due to that they want to come on record.

They pray to allow the civil revision petition.

6. I have heard both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that petitioners being bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration are proper and necessary parties to be added as defendants in the suit filed by first respondent/plaintiff seeking for specific performance of contract.

He prays to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

8. The learned counsel for respondents would submit that admittedly petitioners are purchasers of portion of plaint schedule property during the pendency of the su