IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5543 of 2009 Between: N. Kalavathi … Petitioner And: P Kulasekharan & others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5543 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 09.09.2009 in IA No.787 of 2009 in OS No.546 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC to get implead as 2nd plaintiff was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 7. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed suit against other respondents for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the plaint schedule property i.e., Plot No.109 in TS No.13 of Sripuram Colony, Tirupati town. The 5th defendant filed written statement inter-alia stating that the first respondent herein/plaintiff P.Kulasekharan died in 1974 itself and as such, the suit filed by him is nullity and the alleged GPA said to have been executed by the first respondent in favour of K. Thimmareddy on 24.02.2004 is a forged and fabricated document and the said GPA is also nullity. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed IA No.787 of 2009 seeking to come on record as 2nd plaintiff on the ground that she purchased the schedule property under registered sale deed dated 12.06.2007 for valid consideration of Rs.7,15,000/- from the GPA holder of the first plaintiff and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. According to her, the GPA of the plaintiff- Kulasekharan received the sale consideration of Rs.7,15,000/- and executed the registered sale deed on 12.06.2007. The 5th defendant filed counter and the same was adopted by the other defendants, opposing the application. The learned Junior Civil Judge by the impugned order dismissed the petition on the ground that there is no cause of action in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit and hence, the present revision by the proposed 2nd plaintiff. 4. The suit was filed for bare injunction in the name of Kulasekharan by his GPA holder K.Thimmareddy in the year 2004. According to the defendants, Kulasekharan died in 1974 itself and the suit filed 30 years later in 2004 in the name of a dead person is nullity. They would further contend that in spite of bringing the factum of death of Kulasekharan to the notice of the Court by filing a memo immediately after filing of the suit, no steps were taken to bring the LRs on record and only when the matter came up for trial in the year 2009 about five years after filing of the suit, the present application is filed by the third party claiming to be a purchaser under registered sale deed dated 12.06.2007 from the GPA Holder and even by that date, the GPA was not in force, principal Kulasekharan having died in 1974 itself. Though, the GPA holder filed an application in IA No.1803 of 2007 to implead the 6th respondent as a party, he has not chosen to implead the petitioner herein, who is said to have purchased under registered sale deed dated 12.06.2007. The averments in the plaint are to the effect that the defendants were trying to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the land by Kulasekharan, represented by his GPA holder K Thimmareddy. The cause of action for the suit is said to have arisen on 25.04.2004 when the defendants attempted to dispossess the plaintiff. The proposed 2nd plaintiff is admittedly a subsequent purchaser. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the factum of lis pendens would apply, as the suit being one for injunction and no part of cause of action arisen in favour of the proposed 2nd plaintiff when the suit was filed in 2004, she is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in ‘Savitridevi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur[1]’ wherein the apex Court held as follows: “Order I Rule 10 CPC enables the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings, if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code.” 6. The above decision was followed in ‘V.Ravimenon v. R.Ebinessar[2]’, wherein it was held that ‘in a suit for permanent injunction, the impleadment of purchaser during the pendency of the suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings is necessary’. 7. The principle laid down in the above decision by the apex Court that the Court is empowered to add any person as a party at any stage whose presence it considers necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute and it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, is not disputed. In the normal circumstances, a purchaser of the subject matter of the suit during pendency of the suit can be implead as a party when his presence is necessary for effective and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute, notwithstanding the fact that such transfer is hit by doctrine of lis pendens. In the present case, the very contention of the defendants from the beginning is that the principal i.e., P Kulasekharan having died as long back as in the year 1974, filing of the suit in his name by his GPA holder Thimmareddy in the year 2004 is itself fraudulent, as the GPA has come to an end with the death of the principal in 1974 and therefore, the very initiation of proceedings by the GPA holder in the year 2004 is itself bad in law and such proceedings, which are only void ab initio, cannot be permitted to be continued by the alleged purchaser pendente lite i.e., petitioner herein. The defendants would further contend that the valuable right of the defendants to the effect that the very institution of the suit is bad and the suit itself is not maintainable would get defeated if the proposed 2nd plaintiff is impleaded. 8. For the same reasons, the decision in ‘V.Narayana Reddy vs. Rani Narayanan[3]’ sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the above case also, the original plaintiff filed the suit for injunction and subsequently, the plaintiff entered into agreement of sale with the proposed party in respect of the suit property and also obtained registered sale deed during pendency of the suit and constructed a building with necessary permission from the Municipality and thereafter, sought to get himself impleaded as 2nd plaintiff to prosecute the suit, because the original plaintiff was not interested in pursuing the matter. His application for impleadment having been dismissed by the trial Court, he preferred revision petition, wherein, this Court while allowing the revision petition permitting impleadment held as follows: “The analogy that is being confirmed from time to time indicates that the criteria for impleadment of a party under the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of CPC is whether such proceeding or suit can be determined without impleading a party who is sought to be impleaded and for rendering complete justice such party is required to be added to such proceedings and if such party is not impleaded, the judgment which is going to be rendered has an effect on such person, is required to be considered. The other aspect the Court is required to keep in mind is whether if such a party is not added to the proceedings, whether it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Upon consideration of the above said principles, the apex Court held in the above said judgments held that if a party sought to be impleaded is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings, they can implead at any stage of the proceedings.” 9. In the present case, though the petitioner is a purchaser pendente lite and therefore seeks to get implead as a party, so as to pursue the suit, such impleadment would certainly cause prejudice to the valuable defence of the defendants, according to whom, the suit itself is not maintainable. The person who filed suit, namely, Thimmareddy, having ceased to be the GPA holder with the death of the principal Kulasekharan in the year 1974 and therefore, according to the defendants, continuance of the suit, which is ab initio void by the proposed plaintiff, does not arise. 10. In view of the peculiar circumstances obtaining in the present case where the suit is filed by the GPA holder about 30 years after the death of the principal, impleadment of the purchaser pendente lite cannot be permitted and the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, it was held that the purchaser pendente lite can be impleaded are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. Even other wise, it is well settled that bringing on record lis pendens transferee is not as of right but in the discretion of Court as held by the apex Court in ‘Devendra Kumar Sarewgee v Purbanchal Estates (P) Ltd[4]’, wherein it was held that ‘Order XXII Rule 10 CPC confers a discretion on the Court hearing the suit to grant leave to the person in or upon whom such interest has come to vest or devolve to be brought on record’. The present application in IA No.787 of 2009 was filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC but not under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. 12. The only question that falls for consideration in the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC is whether the presence of the proposed party before the Court is necessary for determination of the real matter in dispute as held in ‘P. Vijayalakshmi Devi vs. MRO, Shaikpet Mandal[5]’ relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the above case, it was held that ‘prima facie, it is to be seen as to whether there is any interest claimed by proposed parties in respect of subject matter and all other questions in regard to their rival claims as regards title, etc. should be left open for decision to be taken after regular trial. 13. In the present case, no doubt, the petitioner-proposed 2nd plaintiff claimed to have acquired interest in the subject matter of the suit but when the suit itself is alleged to be not maintainable from its very inception and when the said dispute is one which arises between the original plaintiff, represented by GPA and the defendants, the presence of the petitioner-proposed 2nd plaintiff is not necessary for resolving the same. On the other hand, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants, it is quite possible that the proposed plaintiff seeks to come on record only with a view to avoid adverse consequence of filing of the suit on behalf of dead person by his erstwhile GPA holder. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial Court has properly exercised its discretion in not permitting the petitioner to come on record and the same does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is open to the petitioner to avail other remedies, if any, available under law. 15. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.04.2011 bss [1] (1999)2 SCC 577 [2] (2009)1 CTC 775 [3] 2009(4) ALD 13 [4] (2006) 9 SCC 199 [5] 2007(5) ALD 1 (DB)