HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 800 of 2011 Date: 19.12.2011 Between: Smt. M.Bharathi, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And Golla Shankaraiah and 16 others. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 800 of 2011 O R D E R : Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.431 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. This revision petition is directed aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2011 passed by the Court below dismissing I.A.No.1955 of 2010 filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner for impleadment of third parties as defendants 14 to 17. The facts in brief are as under: The suit is filed against the respondents 1 and 2 herein for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19.04.1994 in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was dismissed for default on 17.08.2001 and thereafter, it was restored on 15.10.2009. In the meanwhile, as the defendants 1 and 2 died, the respondents 3 to 13 herein were brought on record as defendants 3 to 13 as the legal representatives of the deceased defendants 1 and 2. The defendants 3 to 13 filed their written statement contesting the suit claim. While the suit is coming up for trial, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1955 of 2010 under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. with a prayer to implead the respondents 14 to 17 herein as defendants 14 to 17. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was pleaded that the 1st defendant during his life time alienated the suit property in favour of the respondents 14 to 16 under a registered sale deed dated 19.03.2004 with a mala fide intention to defeat the claim of the plaintiff and that the respondents 14 to 16 in turn executed a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 19.11.2004 in favour of the 17th respondent. Thus, it is pleaded that the respondents 14 to 17 who are claiming right and interest in respect of the suit schedule property are proper and necessary parties to the suit. The proposed respondents 14 to 16 filed a counter opposing the impleadment and alleging that the suit agreement dated 19.04.1995 was a forged and fabricated document. It was contended that as they had purchased the property under registered sale deeds dated 19.03.2004 by which time, no suit was pending and no orders were existing restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property, they are bona fide purchasers for valid consideration and as such they cannot be proceeded against in a suit for specific performance. The Court below dismissed the application by order dated 01.02.2011 holding that the application was filed at a belated stage after commencement of the trial. It was also held that the proposed parties who were strangers to the suit transaction were not proper and necessary parties. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the both parties. As noticed above, the suit was dismissed for default on 17.08.2001 and it was restored in October, 2009. The defendants 3 to 13 who came on record as the legal representatives of deceased defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statements only in January, 2010 and the suit is now coming up for the cross-examination of P.W.1. Hence, in my considered opinion the Court below was not justified in observing that the application was filed at a belated stage. Coming to the merits of the case, admittedly, the proposed defendant 14 to 16 had purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.1. The said fact is not in dispute. Since they are claiming title through the defendant No.1 there is no question of title adverse to that of the defendants 1 and 2 as well as the defendants 3 to 13 i.e. the legal heirs of defendants 1 and 2. The question whether in a suit for specific performance of sale of property by a purchaser against the vendor who are strangers or third parties to the contract claiming to have an independent title and possession over the contracted property is entitled to be as a party defendant has been considered in detail by the Supreme Court in KASTURI v. IYYAMPERUMAL[1]. After reviewing the decided cases on the subject, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under: “In our view, a bare reading of this provision namely, second part of Order 1 Rule 10 sub-rule (2) of the CPC would clearly show that the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if they are dead their legal representatives as also a person who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. In equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased with notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party. Tests are – (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.” From the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, it is clear that the person who has purchased the contracted property from the party to the suit is a proper and necessary party so as to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. It may be true that the proposed parties have purchased the suit property after the suit was dismissed for default and before it was restored. However, the fact remains that they are claiming title through the defendant No.1. Therefore, in my considered opinion, they are the proper and necessary parties to the suit for effectual and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the suit. Hence, the Court below was not justified in dismissing the application for impleadment. Accordingly, the order under revision is hereby set aside and I.A.No.1955 of 2010 shall stand allowed. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties submitted that as the suit is of the year 1999, the same may be disposed of at the earliest. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date:19.12.2011 KLP [1] (2005) 6 SCC 733