HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2171 of 2011 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30-05-2011 in I.A.No.403 of 2008 in I.A.No.357 of 1987 in O.S.No.66 of 1981 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, and, wherein, the application, filed by the 2nd defendant, petitioner herein, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, for impleading the 4th respondent (third party), who is a purchaser of item-1 of the plaint schedule land, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Perused the record. 3. The 1st respondent-plaintiff, filed a suit O.S.No.66 of 1981 against the respondents 2 and 3, D-1 and D-3, and revision petitioner, D-2, for passing of a preliminary decree. The said suit was decreed, and thereafter, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.357 of 1987 for passing of final decree. During pendency of the final decree proceedings, it is stated that item-2 of the plaint schedule land was sold by the 1st respondent-plaintiff and the petitioner-D-2, under a registered sale deed, dated 20-04-2006 in favour of 4th respondent, proposed third party. Therefore, I.A.No.403 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner-D-2 for impleadment of the third party (purchaser), the 4th respondent herein. By the impugned order, said application was dismissed on the ground that the alienation is hit by doctrine of lis pendens. 4. It is to be seen that the suit is for partition and final decree proceedings are still pending. No doubt, the alienation was effected by plaintiff and D-2, in favour of the proposed third party during pendency of the final decree proceedings. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC contemplates that any person can be added as a party to the proceedings at any stage, if his presence before the Court is considered necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In the final decree proceedings while adjusting the equities and thereby settling the dispute in effective and comprehensive manner, the presence of all the parties including the alienees would be necessary. The equities can be worked out in an effective manner and that the interest of all the parties concerned can be duly safeguarded, if only all the parties including the alienees are present before the Court. The 4th respondent, who is the purchaser of item-2 of the plaint schedule land, is therefore, both proper and necessary party to the final decree proceedings for an effective and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute and for passing final decree duly safeguarding the interest of all the parties. 5. In that view of the matter, it is considered that the impleadment of the 4th respondent, the proposed third party, would only enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the matter and pass the final decree in a appropriate manner. 6. The impugned order dismissing the application of impleadment of the 4th respondent, therefore, is set aside and consequently, I.A.No.403 of 2008 stands allowed and 4th respondent is permitted to be impleaded as a party to the final decree proceedings. Further, it is made clear that as the final decree proceedings are stated to be pending for 24 years, the trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.357 of 1987 in O.S.No.66 of 1981, at an early date, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. _______________________ 28-12-2011 JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHI kvr