IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5820 OF 2009 Between: Md. Hayathoddin ..... Petitioner/Petitioner AND 1. M.V.S. Subramanyam ..... Respondent/Respondent 2. Smt. Maripeddi Swarupa Rani ..... Respondent/Proposed Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri K.Govind, learned counsel representing Sri Nelli Narsappa, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. 2. The Revision Petitioner/Defendant is aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.717 of 2009 in O.S.No.265 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Siddipet, by the order, dated 07.09.2009. 3. The petition was filed to implead the second respondent herein as a co-defendant/second defendant in the suit claiming the said second respondent to be the purchaser of the suit property from the plaintiff, pending the suit. 4. The trial Court felt that the subsequent purchaser can only take a stand which the original owner can take in the suit and any such transaction during the pendency of the suit will not in any way adversely affect the rights of the parties to the suit. The trial Court, hence, dismissed the petition. 5. The Revision Petitioner/Defendant claims that the jurisdiction of the trial Court should have been exercised in favour of impleading the second respondent as a party. 6. The copy of the plaint shows that the plaintiff filed the suit against the Revision Petitioner in respect of the suit house for delivery of vacant possession on the ground that the Revision Petitioner/the tenant was in arrears of rent and did not respect the undertaking to vacate the premises given by him. In the Written Statement, the Revision Petitioner did not dispute the ownership of the plaintiff or his being the tenant, but he claimed the plaintiff to be not entitled to possession on the grounds raised by him. The questions in controversy are pending trial before the trial Court. Even assuming that the plaintiff sold the suit property to the second respondent, pending the suit, as rightly observed by the trial Court, the doctrine of lis pendens governs the rights and interests of both the parties and the second respondent gets no better right to evict the Revision Petitioner than the original plaintiff himself. If so, the impleadment of the proposed party was rightly found not necessary by the trial Court, more so, when either the original plaintiff or the subsequent purchaser had not conceded such a request. 7. As such, the impugned order does not appear assailable at this stage and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) Dated: 23rd December, 2009. KL