THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.139 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.132 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, against respondents 1 to 3 herein for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The trial of the suit is in progress. She filed I.A.No.1530 of 2009 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to implead respondents 4 to 6 as defendants in the suit. It was pleaded that she was not aware of the purchase of part of the suit schedule properties made by the proposed respondents. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 15.12.2009. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Though the other respondents are served with notices, they have not chosen to enter appearance. The suit filed by the petitioner is the one for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. She pleaded that her father, one of the coparceners in the joint family, died when she was in womb and after birth, even during her childhood, she was driven away from her paternal uncle’s place. Narrating the subsequent stages of her life, she prayed for the relief of partition and separate possession. Stating that she came to know about the particulars of the purchases made by respondents 4 to 6, she filed the I.A. In a suit for partition, the purchasers of the suit schedule property are treated as necessary parties. In the event of preliminary decree being passed, the interest of the subsequent purchasers from the coparceners needs to be taken into account. It may so happen that the property in the hands of the purchasers may be allotted to the shares of the respective vendors and if it exceeds their share, necessary arrangement must be made. For all practical purposes, the purchasers step into the shoes of coparceners and in their absence, no effective adjudication can take place. So far as the stage, at which the persons can be impleaded or items of property can be included or deleted, is concerned, in a suit for partition, there does not exist any rigidity. Instances are not lacking, where even at the stage of final decree, new items are added and persons who are interested in them, are made as parties. Unless such flexibility exits, there cannot be any effective partition of the properties in a suit of this nature. The trial Court was mostly guided by the fact that the I.A. was filed at a belated stage. Viewed in the context referred to above, no stage can be treated as belated in a suit for partition. As a matter of fact, it is in the interest of the proposed respondents that they are made as parties. Otherwise they would be exposed to danger on being proceeded against, in case it is held that the sales made in their favour are untenable or otherwise legal. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, the I.A. shall stand allowed. The trial Court shall give opportunity to the proposed respondents to file written statement and proceed further. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 25.08.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.139 of 2010 Date: 25.08.2010 JSU