The court affirmed that a purchaser pendente lite is a necessary party in ongoing litigation to ensure all parties with legitimate interests are heard.

ORDER :

K. Sujana, J.

Since the parties and lis involved in both the revision petitions are same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. CRP.No.2527 of 2022 is filed challenging the order dated 20.07.2022 passed in IA.No.546 of 2021 in OS.No.162 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB.Nagar ; and CRP.No.429 of 2023 is filed challenging the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in IA.No.4 of 2021 in CMA.SR.No.8 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Judge, at LB.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

CRP. No. 2527 OF 2022

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein filed IA.No.546 of 2021 in OS.No.162 of 2019 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC praying to implead them as plaintiff Nos.2 to 3 in the suit, stating that they purchased the suit schedule property from Plaintiff No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 09.09.2019. However, Defendants 1 to 4 claimed ownership of the property, alleging that they had purchased it from Ayesha Tabassum, who had acquired it from Syed Sami Ahmed. It was contended that Syed Sami Ahmed was an imposter who had created forged documents, including the sale deed and that defendant Nos.1 to 4 were aware of the pending suit and had purchased the property with knowledge of the dispute. On the other hand, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 claimed that they were the absolute owners and possessors of the plot, having purchased it from Ayesha Tabassum, and that they had constructed a compound wall and erected a gate on the property, and had obtained an electricity connection as well.

4. After hearing both sides, the trial Court considered the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC and the principles laid down in various judgments, such as, Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay , [(1992) 2 SCC 524] , Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal , [2004) 2 SCC 601] , Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon , [(2005) 11 SCC 403] , Kunna Ramulu v. Kunna Annapurnamma , 2002 (2) ALT 491, Pannala Renuka v. Kavali (Rajumouni) Venkataiah, 2006 (6) ALD 761 and held that the respondents herein were necessary parties to the suit and that their impleadment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and allowed the petition, directing them to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioners herein and to carry out amendments and file a neat copy of the plaint within 14 days.

CRP.No.429 OF 2023

5. The brief facts of this case are that the respondents herein who are third parties to IA.No.257 of 2019 in OS.No.162 of 2019 filed IA.No.4 of 2021 in CMA.SR.No.8 of 2021 under Section 151 of CPC seeking leave to file CMA against the order dated 30.01.2020 passed in the said IA., stating that they are the purchasers of the suit schedule property from the Plaintiff, and contended that they are the bona fide purchasers of the suit schedule property and have a strong case. On the other hand, the said plea was strongly opposed contending that the respondents herein are third parties to the suit and have no locus standi to file the appeal, and that they have no cause of action. The trial Court considered the provisions of CPC and the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.N. Krishna Murthy v. Ravikumar , [2020 5 ALD 153 SC] and Raj Kumar v. Sardar Lal , [2004 (2) ALD 95 SC] and held that a stranger can appeal against a decree, only if he is aggrieved person whose rights are affected, and observed that the respondents herein are lis pendente transferees, having purc