Purchasers pendente lite can be impleaded as co-plaintiffs in a suit if they have a substantive interest in the subject matter of the suit and there is a need to avoid multiplicity of suits.

1. The Defendant in O.S. No. 273 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Salem, is the Petitioner in the above C.R.P.

2. The First Respondent herein has filed O.S. No. 273 of 2004 against the Petitioner herein for the following reliefs:

a. Declaring that the Suit ‘A’ schedule property is a common cart track;

b. Granting permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant and his men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit ‘A’ schedule property;

c. Granting permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants and his men from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit ‘B’ schedule property.

d. Granting permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant and his men from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful user and enjoyment of ingress and egress of vehicles, machineries, etc. through the Suit ‘C’ schedule property and thereafter through Suit ‘A’ schedule property.

e. Granting permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant and his men from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the common well situated in the eastern side of the Defendant’s property in S. No. 136/1A along with the pipeline, water, electricity pump and electricity service connection for irrigating the coconut trees in the Suit ‘B’ schedule property.

f. Directing the Defendant by means of mandatory injunction to lay a new 15 wide cart immediately north of the HT electricity meter board room and link the same to the existing common cart track (Suit ‘A’ schedule property) within a time specified by the Hon’ble Court and on his failure to comply with the order to pass a mandatory injunction directing the demolishment of the HT electricity meter board room;

g. Directing the Defendant by means of mandatory injunction to remove the thatched structure (Suit ‘D’ schedule property); and

h. Directing the Defendant by means of mandatory injunction to restore the gate at the eastern side of Suit ‘A’ schedule property.

3. Pending the Suit, the Respondents 2 and 3 filed I.A. No. 571 of 2008 under Order 1 Rule 10, r/W Section 151, C.P.C. to implead them as Plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the Suit.

4. In the Affidavit filed in support of the Petition, it is averred as follows:

a. The Respondents 2 and 3 have purchased the suit schedule properties and other properties under a Sale Deed, dated 24.7.2008 for a valid consideration from the Plaintiff/First Respondent herein and his wife J. Mangayarkarasi. The vendors have delivered the vacant possession of the properties to them. After taking possession, they are in enjoyment of the same.

b. It is further averred that after taking possession they have altered the existing watchman’s shed in the suit schedule property and on 5.11.2000 when the Second Respondent went to suit property the Defendant’s manager came there and informed him that there is a Suit pending before the Court in respect of part of the properties purchased by the Respondents 2 and 3. But the Plaintiff and his wife did not inform about the pendency of the Suit at the time of negotiations and execution of the Sale Deed. After ascertaining the facts from the Plaintiff, the Petitioner have filed the present petition.

c. It is the case of the Respondents 2 and 3 that, they are the bona fide purchasers of the suit properties and are the present owners of the suit properties and as such their interest has to be protected and therefore they are necessary and proper parties to the Suit.

5. The Plaintiff filed a Counter contending that he had informed the Respondents 2 and 3 about the pendency of the Suit at the time of negotiations. It is admitted that he furnished the Suit number and Suit hearing date and informed the Respondents 2 and 3 about the granting of injunction by the Court. The sale by the Plaintiff to the Respondents 2 and 3 is admitted. The Petition was not opposed by the Plaintiff.

6. The Defendant/Petitioner herein filed a separate Counter,