Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.SUJANA
Puppala Suchitra – Appellant
Versus
K.Preamchander Reddy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common parties in revision petitions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. ownership dispute and impleadment principles (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. trial court's rationale for impleadment (Para 4) |
| 4. conclusion and dismissal of the revision petitions. (Para 6) |
| 5. arguments against impleadment of subsequent purchasers (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. respondents defend their right to appeal (Para 9) |
| 7. legal standing of pendente lite purchasers (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 8. court's final verdict on revision petitions (Para 13) |
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
The court affirmed that a purchaser pendente lite is a necessary party in ongoing litigation to ensure all parties with legitimate interests are heard.
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.
The court emphasized that a transfer pending litigation is not void but subservient to the ongoing suit, affirming judicial discretion to allow impleadment to protect bona fide purchasers' rights.
Pendente lite purchasers must seek leave under O.XXII R.10 CPC to continue suit, not implead via O.I R.10(2).
Pendente lite purchasers from co-owners are necessary parties in partition suits, and sales executed after the expiration of interim injunctions are valid and subject to the suit's outcome.
A subsequent purchaser of property cannot claim right to appeal if the purchase violates an existing temporary injunction, reinforcing principles of lis pendens and judicial integrity.
The doctrine of lis pendens prevents a subsequent purchaser from acquiring rights in property under litigation; such purchasers are not necessary parties to the suit.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
