ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 16.09.2022 in I.A.No.650 of 2022 in O.S.No.111 of 2016 on the file of the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. This application in I.A.No.650 of 2022 was filed by the proposed party under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice for impleadment as defendant No.2 in the Original Suit. The trial Court, upon consideration of the entire material on record and the rival contentions, dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 16.09.2022 the proposed party has filed this civil revision petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. The submissions made on either side have received due consideration of this Court.

4. As per the averments in supporting affidavit in I.A.No.650 of 2022 it is pleaded by the proposed party that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the premises of ground plus two upper floors and servant quarters, totally admeasuring 8,400 sft., on plot No.3 (Part) and plot No.4 in Sy.Nos.58 and 59/1 admeasuring 894.31 Sq.Yards in the layout of Kausalya Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Kakaguda Village, Secunderabad having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 07.03.2022 from the agreement of sale-cum-GPA holder, the respondent No.3/defendant No.1 M/s.RV Homes (India) Private Limited, represented by its Director and the mutation was also effected in to her name.

5. Whereas, this application is resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs stating that the alleged transaction has taken place during pendency of the suit causing irreparable loss to the plaintiffs. In-fact, the plaintiffs have filed the Original Suit in O.S.No.111 of 2016 for cancellation of the said agreement of sale-cum-GPA document No.25 of 2013 dated 31.12.2012 executed in favour of defendant No.1 and for perpetual injunction, during pendency of the suit, at the fag-end only to create multifarious litigation, the defendant No.1 has sold the suit schedule property in favour of the proposed party, who is the transferee pendent-lite and she has no independent right in the suit schedule property, she cannot be impleaded, she is not at all a necessary party to the present proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. At this stage, it is appropriate to examine the pleadings in the plaint and the written statement filed by defendant No.1, who executed the sale deed in favour of the proposed party on 07.03.2022. The plaintiffs have filed the Original Suit for cancellation of agreement of sale – cum – GPA dated 31.12.2022 against the defendant No.1 and also sought for perpetual injunction. Defendant No.1 has filed a detailed written statement stating that though the plaintiff had handed over the possession to the defendant, subsequently, the plaintiff requested the defendant to allow the plaintiff to be in possession of portion of the suit property on rental basis for a period of one year, as such the defendant has allowed the plaintiff to remain in possession of suit schedule property and the plaintiffs have agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.2,00,000/- to the 1st defendant.

7. It is further pleaded in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the written statement that the plaintiffs gained illegally and caused wrongful loss to the defendants and disputed the agreement of sale, as such the defendant has set-up a counter-claim for specific performance of agreement of sale – cum – GPA dated 31.12.2012 alleging that the plaintiffs have entered into loan transaction and that they are liable to pay the rents from December, 2013 to July, 2017 amounting to Rs.88,00,000/- however, he is restricting the claim only for a period of three years for a sum of Rs.72,00,000/-. Accordingly, in the written statement filed by defendant No.1, a counter claim is setup for directing the plaintiffs to execute a sale deed in favour of the defendants in respec