In a suit for specific performance, a subsequent purchaser may be impleaded for proper adjudication if their rights are affected.

ORDER:

RENUKA YARA, J.

Heard Sri M.Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Sreenivas, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.11.2024 passed in I.A. No.176 of 2024 in O.S. No. 17 of 2020 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan, wherein, the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, to implead the petitioner therein/respondent No.4 as defendant No.4 has been allowed.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition are that the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed suit in O.S. No. 17 of 2020 for specific performance of contract with respect to agricultural land to an extent of Ac.3-00 guntas in Survey No. 24/A1, Ac.0-32 guntas in Survey No.24/A-2/1, Ac.10-33 guntas in Survey No.25/AA, Ac.4-38 guntas in Survey No.27/AA1 and Ac.2-00 guntas in Survey No.27/AA2, total admeasuring Ac.21-33 guntas situated at Kollur village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District. The said property was purchased by the revision petitioner/plaintiff under registered sale deed document bearing Nos.861 and 865 of 2021 both dated 10.08.2021. Subsequently, the revision petitioner has mutated his name in the revenue records and he was issued with pattadar passbook and title deed. The revision petitioner is in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property ever since it is purchased. While things stood thus, respondent No.4 herein filed I.A. No.176 of 2024 claiming that he came to know about suit for specific performance with respect to the land in survey Nos.24/A-1, 24/A-2/1, 25/AA, 27/AA/1 and 27/AA/2 at Kollur village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District and that he verified the revenue records and that pattedar passbook and title deed are issued in favour of the plaintiff/revision petitioner. Respondent No.4 pleaded that he is a bonafide purchaser and that he is raising paddy crops and he is a necessary party to the suit and sought his impleadment. The case of respondent No.4 was opposed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff claiming that sham sale deed is created to defeat his rights and that on the date of filing of the suit in O.S. No. 17 of 2020 for specific performance by him, respondent No.4 had no interest in the subject matter of the suit and as such, sought dismissal of the petition i.e., I.A. No.176 of 2024. The trial Court allowed the I.A. on the premises that respondent No.4 has direct interest in the suit schedule property and the fact of whether he is a bonafide purchaser or not can be dealt with during the course of trial. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

4. In the grounds of the revision, the revision petitioner pleaded that the subsequent purchaser is not a necessary party in a suit for specific performance and that respondent No.4 cannot be impleaded to find as to who is in possession of the contracted property. Further, it is pleaded that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and that the defendant can be impleaded only when the plaintiff files a petition to implead the defendant who is a third party to the contract/subsequent purchaser. For the purpose of passing effective decree and for proper adjudication, nobody can be impleaded as defendants. It is pleaded that respondent No.4 who has suo-motu filed the implead petition cannot be impleaded against the wishes of the revision petitioner/plaintiff who is dominus