The court emphasized that necessary parties must be included in a suit to ensure complete adjudication, correcting the trial court's error in dismissing the petitioner's application for impleadment.

ORDER :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District in IA No.448 of 2023 in OS.No.211 of 2006, dated 10.07.2023.

2. Petitioner is the proposed defendant No.12 and respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the respondents-plaintiffs and the respondent Nos.6 to 15 are other respondents in IA.No.448 of 2023 in OS.No.211 of 2006.

3. It is mentioned in the cause title of the revision that respondent Nos.6 to 15 are not necessary parties.

4. Notices got issued to respondent Nos.2 to 5-respondents- plaintiffs in the CRP are served on 21.08.2023, none appeared for them.

5.1. Petitioner has filed IA.No.448 of 2023 under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to implead him as proposed defendant No.12 in the suit.

5.2. It is stated in the affidavit that petitioner’s vendors by name Mujahid Hussain and Irfan Hussain have purchased the property admeasuring Acs.04-09 guntas in survey No.135 of Pamena Village from respondent Nos.6 to 8-defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the said purchasers have sold the land in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed, dated 20.09.2016 bearing document No.10796 of 2016, ever since he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the above said property without any interruption and he obtained E-pass book and the Government has also sanctioned Rythu Bhandu, recently he came to know about the pendency of the suit when he attended Junior Civil Judge, Chevella in another matter. Respondent Nos.2 to 5-plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 taking advantage of the suit filed by them continuously interfering in the petitioner's possession and that he is a proper and necessary party to the suit and prayed to allow the same.

6. Respondent Nos.2 to 5-plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 filed counter and contended that respondent Nos.6 to 8-defendant Nos.1 to 3 are not the owners and possessors, they do not have any right title over the properties covered in survey No.135 and they have no right to execute registered sale deeds in favour of Mujahid Hussain and Irfan Hussain and the sale deeds dated 31.03.2003, 27.01.2011, 05.06.2012 and 20.09.2016 are illegal, void documents and not binding on them. The proposed defendant in collusion with respondent Nos.6 to 8-defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed the implead petition to settle the scores, if the proposed party is really interested to get himself impleaded into the suit then he ought to have got impleaded all the parties or his vendors in the suit. The purchase made by the petitioner is subsequent to the filing of the suit as such, the transaction is hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and prayed to dismiss the same.

7. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner holding that “the petitioner is not a necessary party to be impleaded and without his presence the suit can be completely adjudicated” which is impugned in the CRP.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-proposed defendant No.12 submits that the order of the learned trial Court is contrary to law and probabilities of the case which suffers serious infirmities of law and fact and the learned trial Court carried away by presumptions and assumptions and erroneously dismissed the application. The finding of the learned trial Court that petitioner did not implead his vendors as parties to the suit as defendants is erroneous, the learned Judge failed to see that the petitioner is not a plaintiff to implead his vendors as parties to the