1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/proposed defendants 6 to 8/3rd parties to the suit is directed against the orders dated 07.06.2013 of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa passed in I.A. No. 89 of 2013 in O.S. No. 33 of 2012 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code, for brevity) for their impleadment as defendants 6 to 8 in the suit.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/proposed defendants (the proposed defendants, for brevity) and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff (the plaintiff, for brevity).

The other respondents are defendants 1 to 5. I have perused the material record.

3. The case of the proposed defendants is this: They had purchased the item no.1 of the suit schedule property from the 3rd defendant on 31.07.2012 for a valuable consideration under a regular registered sale deed and that the 3rd defendant had delivered possession of the same to them and that they are in possession of the property. The 3rd proposed party has in fact purchased a part of the property in item no.3, that is, an extent of Ac.0.02 cents and 431 Square links. The 1st proposed party and 2nd proposed party had purchased Ac.0.02 cents and 397 Square links. All the three proposed parties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the entire item no.3 of the suit schedule property. Prior to the said purchases, they and one S.A. Jaleel had entered into an agreement of sale for a consideration of Rs.11,60,000/- per cent with the 3rddefendant. The 3rd defendant had executed an agreement of sale in favour of S.A. Jaleel on 10.02.2012. On 03.03.2012, the proposed defendants had verified all the documents of the 3rd defendant and also of the 2nd defendant and had entered into an agreement of sale; and on 31.07.2012 and 30.07.2012 the 3rd defendant had directly executed registered sale deeds in favour of the proposed defendants 6 to 8 vide documents bearing nos.6300/2012 and 6299/2012 registered in the Sub-Registrars Office, Rural, Kadapa. The 3rddefendant and the said Jaleel had not given them any information about the filing of the suit by the plaintiff. A week prior to the filing of the present petition, the 8th proposed defendant had come to know of the suit proceedings, when he wanted to sell away the property. Since the proposed defendants have purchased the 3rd item of the suit schedule property for valuable consideration and are in possession and enjoyment of the said item of the plaint schedule property they are entitled to agitate their claims and plead before the Court in the suit. Hence the petition is filed for their impleadment.

4. The case of the plaintiff in the counter is as follows: The alienation made during the pendency of the suit is hit by the Rule enshrined in the doctrine of lis pendens in view of the provision of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The alienees are bound by the outcome of the suit. Therefore, there is no need to permit them to come on record. The petitioners are not entitled to be impleaded as defendants 6 to 8 in the suit. The suit can be effectively and conclusively adjudicated even without the presence of the said proposed defendants. The petition may be dismissed.

5. The trial Court, by the order impugned, had dismissed the petition of the plaintiff following the ratio in the decision in Ramesh Chawla v. N. Srihari [2007(4) ALT 17] wherein it was observed that if a person purchases property contrary to the restraint orders, such a person cannot seek impleadment on grounds of equity. Having referred to the above ratio in the above said decision, the trial Court inter alia observed that the ex parte injunction was passed on 15.02.2012 against the defendants 1 to 5 in the suit; that the said interim injunction order was made absolute as per orders dated 20.06.2012; that the contentions that the proposed d