The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.4024 of 2011 Date: 02-12-2011 Between: Poola Anjaiah ..... Petitioner AND Akavaram Vijaya Nirmala and 2 others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Counsel for the Respondents: ----- The Court made the following : Order: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 12-07-2011, in IA.No.573 of 2008 in OS.No.616 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, at Nalgonda. The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS.No.616 of 2006, ﬁled for declaration that the purported registered sale deed, dated 08-04-2005, is not a genuine document and that the same does not bind him. Pending the suit, respondent No.1- defendant sold the property in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 07-02-2008. Therefore, the petitioner ﬁled IA.No.573 of 2008 seeking impleadment of the purchasers as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the said suit. The Court below dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner. Even though notices have been served on the respondents, they have not entered appearance. At the hearing, no one represented them. A perusal of the impugned Order of the Court below would show that the implead application ﬁled by the petitioner was dismissed on the basis of the judgments of this Court reported in Pannala Renuka and another vs. Kavali (Rajumouni) Venkataiah and others and Veerabathini Janardhan v. Terala Rajaiah (since died) by LR and others[1]. These two judgments arise out of the applications ﬁled by the purchasers pendentilite to come on record. Those applications were rejected on the ground that they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit proceedings as the sale made during the pendency of the litigation is hit by the doctrine of lis pendence and the judgment and decree bind them. In the instant case, the application for impleadment is ﬁled by the plaintiﬀ and not by the subsequent purchasers. Obviously, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and as a measure of caution, the petitioner has intended to implead the subsequent purchasers as defendants. Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, needs to be construed in a rational and pragmatic manner. The predominant object of addition of parties is to eﬀectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Parties also need to be added to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. If the petitioner obtains a decree, there is a probability of the subsequent purchasers indulging in vexatious litigation by initiating fresh proceedings by taking shelter under the fact that they were not parties to the previous litigation. By adding the subsequent purchasers, such litigation can be avoided once and for all and the same would not, in any manner, prejudice the interests of the subsequent purchasers. This, in fact, would help the Court to properly and eﬀectually adjudicate the dispute raised in the suit. For the abovementioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and Order, dated 12-07-2011, in IA.No.573 of 2008 in OS.No.616 of 2006, on the ﬁle of the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, at Nalgonda, is set aside. Consequently, IA.No.573 of 2008 stands allowed. As a sequel, interim order, dated 28-10-2011, is vacated and CRPMP.No.5741 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 2nd December, 2011 LUR [1] 2007 6 ALD 605