IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.189 OF 2009 Date:03.02.2011 Between:- M/s.Vijetha Constructions, rep.by its Managing Partner,S.J.Prakash Reddy. ..Proposed third party/proposed defendant/petitioner And Chintoji Brahmaiah Chary and two others .. Respondents ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 18- 11-2008 in I.A.No.1739 of 2008 in O.P.No.531 of 2006 on the file of the District Judge, Nizamabad whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the first respondent under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”) to implead the proposed party as the third defendant in the suit was allowed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is neither a necessary nor proper party to the lis, that no order can be passed against the petitioner even if he is impleaded as a defendant in the suit and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. Under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C., a party can be impleaded as a defendant at any stage of the suit so as to resolve the dispute in controversy once for all. The power to add a party under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 10 may be exercised on either of two grounds (i) such person ought to have been joined, either as a plaintiff or as a defendant, but is not so joined, or (ii) without his presence, the question involved in the suit cannot be decided finally and effectively. The claim of the petitioner is that prior to granting of injunction by the trial Court, the petitioner purchased the property under a registered sale deed and therefore, even if the original petition is to be allowed, no relief can be granted against the petitioner and therefore, the presence of the petitioner is not necessary for adjudication of the dispute. The doctrine of lis pendens rests upon the foundation that no party to the litigation can alienate the disputed property so as to affect the other party, otherwise it would be impossible that any action or suit could be brought to a successful termination. Whether Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1908 is applicable or not has to be decided in the suit after letting evidence by the parties. No doubt, no relief can be granted against the petitioner herein but at the same time, it has to be seen whether the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration or not because he alleged to have purchased the property from the second respondent herein under registered sale deed during the pendency of the original petition. Therefore, whether the purchase of the petitioner is hit by lis pendens or not has to be decided in the suit itself. Hence, the trial Court rightly allowed the petition and that order needs no interference of this Court. This petition is devoid of merits. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 3rd February, 2011 AMD