IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2325 of 2007 BETWEEN Kum. L. Swetha. ... PETITIONER AND Sri L. Sanjeeva Reddy and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P. VENKAT REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. J. PRABHAKAR The Court made the following: ORDER: The plaintiff, who filed the suit O.S.No.1360 of 2005 for partition, sought impleadment of respondents 5 to 7 as defendants 5 to 7 vide I.A.No.1039 of 2006 in the suit on the ground that they are the purchasers from the defendants. The trial Court rejected the said implead petition on the ground that the sales in favour of the proposed respondents/defendants were made prior to the suit and that, prima facie, the said sales appear to be for family necessities and not for any illegal purpose. The said rejection is questioned in this revision. 2. The application for impleadment of purchasers of suit schedule property from the contesting defendants ought to have been examined by the Court below from the point of view of existence of necessary and proper parties, instead the Court below has at the impleadment stage gave finding regarding the said sales being for family necessities and that they are not for illegal purpose etc. Secondly, the fact that these proposed respondents purchased the suit schedule property itself shows that in a suit for partition they are necessary parties and in any case, are proper parties required to be impleaed. The Court below has not examined the matter from this standpoint. The proposed parties can always agitate that they are bonafide purchasers and that their purchase is on account of family necessity etc., but refusal to implead them in the suit on the ground as recorded under the impugned order, is clearly unsustainable, thereby the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. The Court below shall implead the proposed parties and give them an opportunity to file a written statement and proceed with the suit. Since the suit is of the year 2005, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 3, 2011 DSK