THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTI CE K. SUJANA CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON NO.1096 OF 2023

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the trial Court dated 21.03.2023 in IA.No.313 of 2022 in OS.No.41 of 2022 (Old OS.No.82 of 2014) on the file of II Additional District Court (FTC), Mahabubnagar, wherein, the petition is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 to implead them as defendants No.4 to 7 in the main suit, under Order 1 Rule

10(2) of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘C.P.C.’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed affidavit on behalf of respondents and stated that respondent No.7, who is defendant No.1 in the main suit alienated the lands situated in survey Nos.261, 274 and 275 to an extent of Ac.01-28 gts., Ac.01-18 gts., and Ac.00-39 gts., respectively, altogether Ac.04-05 gts., situated within the limits of Makthal Village and executed a registered sale deed by receiving total consideration amount from respondent No.1. The said lands were mutated in his name in the Revenue Records and pattedar passbook and title deed were issued in his favour and he became absolute owner of the above said land. Further, Tahsildar, Makthal Mandal caused enquiries and issued proceedings for the conversion of aforesaid lands into non-agricultural lands, and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, respondent No.7 has sold the land situated in Sy.No.287 to an extent of Ac.01-11 gts., within the limits of Makthal Village in favour of respondent No.2 and executed a registered sale deed by receiving sale consideration, and issued pattedar passbook and title deed in his favour in respect of which, the respondent No.2 became absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of the said land, and respondent No.7 sold the land situated in Sy.Nos.260 and 286 to an extent of Ac.00-23 gts., and Ac.01-26 gts., within the limits of Makthal village in favour of respondent No.3 and executed a registered sale deed dated 23.08.2021 by receiving sale consideration amount and issued pattedar passbook and title deed in his favour and all these petitioners are bonafide purchasers and they have purchased the suit land through registered sale deeds and in possession of the same, they have developed the lands by investing huge amounts and recently, after verifying revenue records in Dharani Portal, they came to know that the suit was filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.4 to 6 against the respondent Nos.7 to 8 vide OS.No.82 of 2014 and it is renumbered as OS.No.41 of 2022 and the same is pending in adjudication and the lands purchased by them are not the ancestral properties and the same are not liable for partition, as such, requested the Court to implead them as defendants No.4 to 7 in the main suit.

3. The trial Court after hearing both sides, allowed the petition and permitted respondent Nos.1 to 3 to come on record as defendant Nos.4 to 7 in the main suit.

4. Aggrieved by the same, present petition is filed stating that the trial Court not followed conditions mentioned in Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and they are not the proper parties or necessary parties to the proceedings, and that the proposed parties have purchased the property during the pendency of the suit and they are not the necessary parties and the lispendency would be applicable, and they cannot be impleaded as parties to the proceedings. The trial Court failed to see that once the property was purchased during the pendency of the suit, the question of bonafide purchasers does not arise and they cannot be impleaded as parties to the suit, and without considering the objections raised by the petitioners and in not adverting to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2022(6)(ALD) Page 140 in ‘Sudha Mayee Patnaik and others vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and others’, [2022 (6) ALD 140], as such, requested the Court to set aside the same.

5. Heard both sides.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that suit is filed for partition of ance