THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.2428, 2429 and 2433 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since these three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a common order and the parties in these three revisions are also one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.975 of 2008. In the suit, it is his case that he is the tenant of house bearing No.5-11-206, situated at Naimnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District and the same was leased out to him by the first respondent/defendant for a period of 10 years on 01.04.1989. It is stated that he is doing tent house business in the said premises by obtaining a trade licence from the Municipal Corporation, Warangal. As the landlord/first respondent is trying to evict him from the said premises, without following due process of law, he filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the first respondent and his men from evicting him forcibly. Along with the said suit, he filed I.A.No.1707 of 2008 for temporary injunction and the trial Court granted status quo in the said application and the suit is pending consideration. Alleging that during the pendency of the suit, the first respondent sold the suit schedule property in favour of the proposed respondents by registered sale deed dated 05.09.2004 and he was evicted from the said premises in violation of the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1707 of 2008, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1986 of 2008, seeking mandatory injunction to direct the purchasers to put the petitioner back into possession of the suit schedule property. He also filed I.A.Nos.2398, 2399 and 2400 of 2008 seeking to implead the purchasers as party defendants to the suit and also to I.A.Nos.1986 and I.A.No.1707 of 2008 respectively. The proposed respondents filed counter-affidavits opposing these applications. The trial Court, by the impugned common order, recording a finding that the third party purchasers are not necessary and proper parties to the suit and to I.A.Nos.1986 and 1707 of 2008, dismissed the three applications. Challenging the orders in I.A.Nos.2398, 2399 and 2400 of 2008, the petitioner filed Civil Revision Petition Nos.2433, 2429 and 2428 of 2009 respectively. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the subsistence of the status quo order, the first respondent sold the property to third parties and the petitioner was evicted from the suit schedule property. Therefore, the purchasers of the property are proper and necessary parties to the suit and also to the other interlocutory applications i.e., I.A.Nos.1707 and 1986 of 2008. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhogadi Kannababu and others vs. Vuggina Pydamma and others[1] and also on a judgment of this Court in Aruna M.Dixit and others vs. Anandi Bai V.Dixit and others[2]. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 that as the suit was filed for injunction simplicitor, and as there was no dispute between the petitioner and the proposed respondents, as such they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit and other applications. He relied on the judgments of this Court in P.Vimaladevi and others vs. C.Subojini and others[3] and G.Krishnaiah and another vs. G.Yoganand and others[4]. In Bhogadi Kannababu’s case (1 supra), the Supreme Court held that in an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Court would only decide whether the presence of the applicant before it may be necessary in order to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the proceedings. In Aruna M.Dixit’s case (2 supra), wherein while deciding a question whether developer of the property can be impleaded in the suit for partition, this Court held that since developer also would be deriving some limited interest in immovable property to the extent of proceeding with construction activity, in the light of the terms and conditions of agreement, he also may be a necessary and proper party for proper adjudication of questions in controversy. In the case on hand, it is to be seen that the dispute is with regard to immovable property. Initially, the plea of the petitioner is that the first respondent was taking steps for evicting him otherwise than on due process of law. The trial Court granted orders of status quo, in the light of the said plea of the petitioner, in I.A.No.1707 of 2008. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1986 of 2008 to put him back into possession of the property alleging that he was evicted from the suit schedule property in violation of the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1707 of 2008 and also filed the present applications to implead the purchasers. The trial Court, mainly relying on the judgment of this Court in G.Krishnaiah’s case (4 supra), dismissed the applications seeking impleadment, recording a finding that they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit and other applications. In G.Krishnaiah’s case (4 supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the parties, who are not concerned with the suit, could not be dragged into the litigation. But in view of the allegation of the petitioner, in the instant case, that during the pendency of the suit and existence of the status quo order, the suit schedule property was sold to some third parties and he was evicted therefrom, it cannot be said that the purchasers/proposed respondents are no way concerned with the litigation pending in the suit. As per the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhogadi Kannababu (1 supra), the limited question which has to be considered, at the stage of considering the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, is whether the proposed parties are necessary or not for the effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. In that view of the matter and more so, the proposed respondents came into picture by virtue of the sale effected in their favour by the first respondent during the pendency of the proceedings, this Court is of the view that respondents 2 to 4 are proper and necessary parties for effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit as well as I.A.No.1986 of 2008. Therefore, the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.Nos.2398 and 2399 of 2008 are liable to be set aside. So far as I.A.No.2400 of 2008 to implead the proposed respondents in I.A.No.1707 of 2008 is concerned, the petitioner cannot seek impleadment of the proposed parties in I.A.No.1707 of 2008, since the order of status quo in that application was obtained prior to the sale of the property in favour of the proposed respondents. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.2400 of 2008. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition Nos.2429 and 2433 of 2009 are allowed and consequently the orders in I.A.Nos.2399 and 2398 of 2008 are set aside and the I.As shall stand allowed. Civil Revision Petition No.2428 of 2009 is dismissed. It is needless to observe that I.A. No.1986 of 2008 is to be considered, independently, on its own merits. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 16th September, 2009 vrn [1] (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 532 [2] 2008 (5) ALD 362 [3] 2008 (2) ALD 281 [4] 2006 (5) ALD 560