A pendente lite purchaser can be added as a party to ongoing litigation to protect substantial interests, and such applications should typically be granted without prejudice.

ORDER :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This application is filed under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C seeking to permit the petitioners herein/proposed respondents 5 to 8 to come on record as respondents 5 to 8 in S.A.No.276 of 2019.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The 1^st petitioner/proposed 5^th respondent filed an affidavit in support of the present application on behalf of the petitioners 2 to 4/proposed respondents 6 to 8 also. It is pleaded that the 1^st respondent/appellant knowing fully well aware that they are the bona fide purchasers and owners of the subject property, without impleading them as party respondents, filed the suit, first appeal and the present second appeal. The present application is filed seeking to implead them as respondents 5 to 8 in the above appeal as they are proper and necessary parties for proper adjudication of the lis.

(b) It is further pleaded that the mother of respondents 1 and 2 and mother-in-law and grandmother of respondents 3 and 4 is the absolute owner and possessor of G+2 RCC building constructed on 71 square yards bearing Door No.22-15-52, situated at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. She executed a registered gift deed dated 17-01-1983 in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the said building. By virtue of the registered gift deed, the respondents 1 and 2 became the absolute owners and possessors of the said G+2 RCC building. The respondents 1 and 2 and their family members have collectively sold the said G+2 RCC building to the petitioners/proposed respondents 5 to 8 under four different registered sale deeds by dividing the entire extent into four parts.

(c) It is further pleaded that the appellant herein filed A.S.No.5 of 2016 on the file of III Additional District Court, Bhimavaram. The learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, dismissed the said appeal on 23-3-2019 confirming the judgment and decree dated 16-12-2015 in O.S.No.19 of 2009. Though the appellant herein was unsuccessful before both the Courts below, he did not vacate the property purchased by them and instead, he filed the present second appeal. Therefore, it is prayed to permit them i.e. proposed respondents 5 to 8 to come on record as respondents 5 to 8 in the second appeal.

3. The 1^st respondent/appellant (sole defendant) filed a counter affidavit denying the material averments pleaded in the affidavit of the petitioners. The brief averments are as follows:

(a) It is contended that while the suit is pending, the plaintiffs and their family members alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the proposed respondents. The proposed respondents were having full knowledge about the pendency of the original suit, first appeal as well as the second appeal. In spite of having knowledge about the pendency of the above lis, the proposed respondents have not taken any steps to get themselves impleaded. Further, it is also not the case of the proposed respondents that they are not aware of the pendency of the above lis.

(b) It is further contended that the lease of the defendant was not expired and the alleged lease agreement was executed only for the limited purpose of obtaining bank loan. Further, the lis in respect of the lease and possession has not yet decided by the High Court and as such, since the appeal is a continuing of suit, there is no such question of continuing for a long period even after expiry is not correct. The aspect of handing over of possession to the implead petitioners has to be considered as a lis between the plaintiff and the implead petitioners.

(c) It is further contended that there is no nexus between the cause of action for the suit and the present proposed petitioners have no relation. Once the parties lost their strength or interest on the schedule properties, they cannot operate or continue to contest the matter on behalf of third parties. Further, no serious prejudice will be caused to the proposed respondents if this implead petition is dis