IMPORTANT POINT
Subsequent purchasers are necessary parties in specific performance suits to ensure effective adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

ORDER

The plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 14.03.2024 in I.A.No.628 of 2023 in O.S.No.60 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

2. Plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.60of 2016 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 12.08.2015, against the sole defendant.

3. Facts, in the plaint, in brief, are that an agreement of sale was entered into on 12.08.2015 between the plaintiff and defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.19,30,000/-. At the time of the agreement of sale, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance and the balance sale consideration has to be paid on or before December 2015. The defendant approached the plaintiff and requested to arrange some sale consideration amount and the plaintiff paid Rs.2,50,000/- through her husband on 25.09.2015 and the defendant passed on a receipt, which was scribed by her husband. On 23.01.2016, the defendant received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff’s husband and passed a receipt in the presence of witnesses. The said receipt was scribed by the defendant’s husband. Thus, the defendant received a total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant failed to perform her part of the contract and hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 04.03.2016, for which the defendant issued a reply notice on 26.03.2016.

Hence, the suit.

4. The defendant filed a written statement and did not deny the execution of the agreement of sale. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had not come to the Court with clean hands. Despite requests made by the defendant, the plaintiff failed to perform her part of the contract. The defendant approached the plaintiff to perform her part of the contract before December 2015, however, the plaintiff failed to perform the same. The defendant denied the receipts said to have been issued by her husband. The defendant to meet expenses, sold away the plaint schedule property to third parties and the said fact is known to the plaintiff and eventually, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. The trial in the suit was commenced. When the suit was coming up for arguments, the plaintiff filed three interlocutory applications i.e. to implead the subsequent purchasers; one application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and the other application is filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.628 of 2023, to implead the subsequent purchasers, it was pleaded that after issuance of legal notice, the defendant sold the property to one Allu Chandra Sekhar and his wife Suhasini under a registered sale deed dated 27.04.2016 vide document No.2627 of 2016. Hence, they are necessary parties.

7. A counter was filed on behalf of the defendant as well as proposed parties opposing the application. It was contended that the plaintiff was aware of the sale and filed the petition only to procrastinate the proceedings.

8. By order dated 14.03.2024, the application was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

9. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proposed parties are necessary parties to the suit. After the issuance of legal notice, the sole defendant alienated the property in favour of the proposed parties, and the fact was unknown to the petitioner. He would also submit that the document dated 27.04.2016 is nominal, and that the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly.

11. Now, the point for consideration is:

Does the order dated 14.03.2024 in I.A.No.628 of 2023 in O.S.No.60 of 2016 suffer from illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

12. The suit was filed in July 2016. The written statement was filed, immediately, and it was contended that since