THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.2869 of 2009 Date:2.03.2010 Between: Ramasani Pakir Reddy, Naraynagudem, Nalgonda District and another. Petitioners. To Ramasani Narsamma, Pochampally village & Mandal and others. Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.2869 of 2009 ORDER: This Revision is directed against the order dated 12.2.2009 passed in I.A.No.980 of 2008 in O.S.No.6 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge dismissed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with 151 CPC to bring on record the proposed parties as party defendants 74 to 85 herein in the suit. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.6 of 2000. They claim the properties as legal representatives of Ramasani Sathaiah, who purchased the suit properties along with other three sharers namely; Yerravelly Krishna Murthy, Maddi Narasimha and Bachu Yadagiri. Yerravelly Krishna Murthy is D-16. Maddi Narasimha and Bachu Yadagiri died before filing the suit and their legal representatives have been arrayed as defendants in the suit. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.980 of 2008 to bring on record the respondents 74 to 85 herein as party defendants in the suit on the ground that they purchased the property either from some of the defendants or from their vendors. The proposed parties filed counter resisting the application. The learned Principal District Judge proceeded to dismiss the application primarily on the ground that the plaintiffs did not file any document to show that the proposed parties failed to show that the lands purchased by them from part of the suit schedule properties. The relevant portion of the order dated 12.2.2009 reads as hereunder:- “The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has invited my attention to a decision reported in 2006 (6) ALD 761, wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that, Order-1, Rule – 10, wherein it is held that purchasers pendenti lite cannot be treated as holder of legally enforceable right though bound by a decree passed against his vendor, he cannot as of right be impleaded in suit. He further submitted that all the purchases were made subject to filing of the suit and even if the petitioners succeed in the suit the doctrine of lispendence applies to the above said property. In the light of the above citation and as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the proposed respondents that though the proposed parties are not to the suit, bound by decree passed against the Vendor land the Decree cannot held to be null and void merely on the ground the proposed parties are not added as parties to the suit. The suit is of the year 2000. Even if the plaintiffs succeed in the above suit, the doctrine of lispendence applies to the above said property. Further the petitioners did not file any document to show that the proposed respondents have also purchased land out of the plaint schedule land and in the absence of any documents filed by the petitioners in support of their contention and in the light of doctrine of lispendence, the proposed parties need not be impleaded as necessary parties to the suit and the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.” Hence this revision by the plaintiffs. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 2.7.2009. Sri M. Seshatalapasai entered appearance on behalf of R84, Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad entered appearance on behalf of RR75 to 77, Sri D.Jaipal Reddy entered appearance on behalf of RR74 & 80 and Sri K.Arvinda Rao entered appearance on behalf of RR78 & 81. Respondents 1 to 73 are stated to be not necessary parties. Despite notice being served on the respondents 79, 82, 83 & 85, they did not choose to enter appearance either in persons or through the counsel. The plaintiffs filed CRPMP No.243 of 2010 to receive the certified copies of the registered sale deeds as additional evidence. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the proposed respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners could not file the certified copies of the documents before the trial Court as they secured the same after the disposal of I.A.No.980 of 2008, and, therefore, the copies of the documents are required to be considered for disposal of this revision. Learned counsel also placed on record the events of facts of the case. The events of the facts of the case detail the documents and also the source of title claimed by the proposed parties. Sri M. Seshatalapasai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.84 submits that the vendors from whom the proposed parties purchased the property have not been shown as defendants and in which case, the proposed parties cannot be permitted to come on record as party defendants in the suit. The learned counsel referred the annexure to the counter filed in the trial Court. As seen from the annexure, the plaintiffs 1 & 2 stated to have executed certain documents in favour of some of the proposed parties. Sri K.Aravinda Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 78 & 81 submits that a transferee of an item of property from the vendee, who purchased it from a party to a suit is not directly a transferee and there is no nexus between the transferee and the party to the suit from whom the property was purchased and therefore transferee can not be impleaded as party in the suit. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of Madras High Court in Annapoorani Ammal v. Jayavelu Mudaliar and another[1]. It is to be noted that the suit is still pending in the trial Curt. No preliminary decree is passed. Such is the situation the cited decision has to be no application to the facts of the case. As I observed in the aforesaid Paragraph of the order, the trial Court dismissed the application primarily on the ground of non-furnishing the certified copies of the documents under which proposed parties purchased the properties. Now the petitioner filed the documents whereunder the proposed parties purchased a part of the suit schedule properties along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC. Since the petitioners have placed on record the documents under which the proposed parties purchased part of the suit schedule properties, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order impugned in the revision and remand the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed at the admission stage setting aside the order dated 12.2.2009 and remanding the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. No costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:2.3.2010 mrb [1] A.A.O.No.494 of 1972, dated 7.12.1973