IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5308 of 2010 Between: Modalavalasa Ramulamma ..... Petitioner AND Panchadi Sarada & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5308 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 08.07.2010 in I.A.No.431 of 2010 in O.S.No.417 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam (for short, “the lower Court”). Initially notice was ordered to respondent No.1. The notice sent to her returned un-served with an endorsement that she is not at village for seven days. Therefore, this Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to serve notice on the learned counsel, who appeared for respondent No.1 before the lower Court and accordingly he filed proof of service. Despite service of notice, respondent No.1 has not entered appearance. I have heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is defendant No.1 in O.S.No.417 of 2008 filed by respondent No.2 for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.431 of 2010 seeking her impleadment as second plaintiff in the suit on the ground that she purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 27.01.2010. The lower Court allowed the said application by a cryptic order that as respondent No.1 is a subsequent purchaser, she is a necessary and proper party to the suit. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the relief of injunction is in in persona, the subsequent purchaser cannot come on record in the suit filed by his vendor. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Major P.T. Choudary vs. Mohammed Abdul Basheer Khan and others[1]. This Court in an identical set of facts while setting aside the order of the lower Court in allowing the implead application held has under: “The only question which needs consideration is whether a subsequent purchaser of a suit property in a suit for injunction can be added as a plaintiff. The petitioners have relied on a judgment of this Court reported in Ramesh Chawla v. N. Srihari and others (2005 (3) ALD 4.). In this judgment, the learned Single Judge relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh (1996 (7) Supreme 210 = 1996 (6) SCC 50). In similar circumstances, when the defendants had dealt with the property in a pending suit, the Supreme Court held on the basis of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short, “the Act”). “It would, therefore, be clear that the defendants in the suit were prohibited by operation of Section 52 to deal with the property and could not transfer or otherwise dealt with it in any way affecting the rights of the appellant except with the order or authority of the Court. Admittedly, the authority or order of the Court had not been obtained for alienation of those properties. Therefore, the alienation obviously would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens by operation of Section 52. Under these circumstances, the respondents cannot be considered to be either necessary or proper parties to the suit.” The judgment is from the Supreme Court and this Court is bound to follow the same. But it may be pointed out that whether a transaction was hit by Section 52 of the Act or not cannot be decided in an application for impleadment. The proper course appears to be that after impleadment the question of application of Section 52 of the Act could be decided in the trial. But since there is a direct judgment of the Supreme Court, this Court has no option, but to follow the judgment and reverse the order of the trial Court. The revision petitions are allowed. The third parties, if feel aggrieved, can file a separate suit and this order will not come in their way provided they have a cause of action. Even the findings on Section 52 of the Act are the findings only restricted to the disposal of this revision and it will be open to the Court to decide, if any separate suit is filed, as to whether Section 52 of the Act would operate in the facts and circumstances of the case or not. No costs.” In my opinion, the above-reproduced judgment applies in all fours to this case and accordingly the order of the lower Court is set aside leaving respondent No.1 free to file a separate suit, if she intends to obtain an order of injunction against the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition in the manner indicated above, CRPMP.No.2052 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.02.2011 ES [1] 2007 (2) ALD 675