THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 5318 of 2009 & 5319 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.5318 of 2009: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 09.10.2009 in I.A. No.924 of 2009 in O.S. No.27 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) to implead the petitioners as defendants 4 to 9 in the Suit, was dismissed. 2. The petitioners filed the application stating that they were joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same under different registered sale deeds, all dated 24.10.2008, for a valid consideration from defendants 1 and 2, and that their vendors delivered possession of the property to them; that the defendants 1 and 2 have not informed them about the pendency of the suit and they came to know about the suit about a couple of days back through their advocate; that the plaintiff no.2, who was aware of the purchasing the property by the petitioners, has not taken any steps to implead them in the suit. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed in the I.A. denying the averments in the affidavit, and contending that the sale transactions of the proposed parties with the defendants 1 and 2 are created, and the proposed parties are strangers to the suit schedule property; that, the entire trail of the suit has been completed and the case was posted for judgment; that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge observed that the petition is belated and the suit is of the year 2001 and there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioners, and accordingly dismissed the same by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the suit schedule property in good faith for a valuable consideration; that the defendants 1 and 2 sold the suit schedule property to the petitioners without disclosing the pendency of the suit; that the first defendant, having received the sale consideration, did not tender himself for cross-examination and therefore there is collusion between the plaintiff and the first defendant; that, since the rights of the petitioners are being affected, they are to be impleaded as parties in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the suit is of the year 2001 and the entire evidence has been completed and the matter is posted for judgment; that, though D.W.1 had not tendered himself for cross-examination, D.W.2 was examined; that, at a belated stage, the petitioners filed the application, and that, after giving cogent reasons, the trial court dismissed the same and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 7. Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. reads thus: “Court may strike out or add parties:- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” 8. The allegation is that the petitioners purchased the suit schedule property by virtue of different sale deeds, dated 24.10.2008, and they claim that the possession of the property was delivered to them. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on a decision in Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur & others[1] wherein it is held thus: (para 9) “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 a multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code.” No doubt, the above decision would clearly go to show that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Court can implead the parties to effectively and completely adjudicate the question involved in the suit. But, that is a case where the application was filed when the suit was pending. It is alleged that there was collusion between the plaintiffs and defendants therein in order to cause loss to the proposed parties therein. Therefore, in those circumstances, it is held that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the purchasers can be impleaded. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision in Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hasan SAheb & another[2] wherein it is held thus: (para 9) “It is not disputed that the present petitioner purchased the property during pendency of the suit and without seeking leave of the Court as required by S.52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner being a transferee pendent elite without leave of the Court, cannot, as a matter of right, seek impleadment as a party in the suits which are long pending since 1983. It is true that when the application for joinder based on transfer pendent elite is made, the transferee should ordinarily be joined as party to enable him to protect his interest. But in instant case the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons for rejecting such joinder stating that the suit is long pending since 1983 and prima facie the action of the alienation does not appear to be bona fide. The trial Court saw an attempt on the part of the petitioner to complicate and delay the pending suits.” 10. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the petitioners that the litigation was not properly conducted by the defendants 1 and 2, or that the defendants 1 and 2 colluded with the plaintiff. There is no averment in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioners purchased the property in question bona fidely for a valuable consideration in good faith. Therefore, the remedies, if any, available to the petitioners at the fag end stage of the suit, cannot be determined. But, they have to pursue the remedies elsewhere. In view of the fact that the suit was posted for judgment and it is not shown that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the property in good faith, the petition cannot be allowed. That is the reason why, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Civil Revision Petition No.5319 of 2009: 12. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 09.10.2009 in I.A. No.925 of 2009 in O.S. No.27 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby the petition filed to reopen the suit for purpose of impeading the proposed parties, was dismissed. In view of the order passed in the above Civil Revision Petition, the question of reopening the suit does not arise. 13. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 10.2.2010 Drk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 5318 of 2009 & 5319 of 2009 Date: 10.2.2010 Between: Nampally Nagarjuna Chary & 5 others …Petitioners And V.Mukunda Reddy (died) per his LRs (R2) V.Jayaprakash Narayana Reddy & others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU COMMON ORDER IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 5318 of 2009 & 5319 of 2009 10.2.2010 [1] (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 577 [2] AIR 2004 Supreme Court 173 (1)