Pendente lite purchases are subject to lis pendens, making subsequent purchasers unnecessary parties in partition suits; separate applications are required for distinct reliefs.

ORDER :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 26.03.2024 in I.A.No.249 of 2023 in O.S.No.62 of 2018 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool, whereby and where under the application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Jillella Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.62 of 2018 for partition of suit schedule property and during the pendency of the suit, petitioners filed an application vide I.A.No.249 of 2024 to implead the respondent Nos.2 to 6 as proposed defendant Nos.2 to 6 in the suit and to declare the registered sale deeds as null and void and also consequential amendments in the cause title, plaint paras and in the prayer of plaint. Respondents filed counter resisting the application.

5. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 26.03.2024 dismissed the application with an observation that suit was filed for partition and proposed parties have purchased the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the sales are hit by lis pendens by operation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The trial Court also observed that as per Rule 28 of CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE , for each relief, a separate application has to be filed, however, in the present application, petitioners have sought multiple reliefs and therefore, same is liable to be dismissed and thus, dismissed the application.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the trial Court has wrongly placed reliance on the judgments cited by the respondents reported in Ramesh Chawla v. N.Srihari and others [ (2005) 3 ALD 4 ]; Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another [(2004) 1 SCC 191]; Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and others [(1996) 5 SCC 539], which have no application to the facts of the present case since in the said cases, the pendente lite purchaser filed an application to implead themselves as parties to the suit, whereas in the present, petitioners filed an application to implead pendente lite purchasers to prevent any further alienations by seeking appropriate relief to avoid multiple litigations. He would further submit that the trial Court has failed to consider the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvt.Ltd., v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt.Ltd., and others , (2020) 7 SCC 417, wherein it is categorically held that a proper party is a party who though not a necessary party and whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all the matters and dispute in the suit, which squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners would further submit that the trial Court erroneously came to a conclusion that for each distinct relief, a separate application has to be filed in terms of Rule 28 of CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE and in fact, Rule 28 mandates that all consequential amendments have to be sought in any application filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. He would further submit that respondent