HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.114 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 03.12.2007, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle in I.A.No.240 of 2007 in O.S.No.101 of 1999, whereunder and whereby a petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C’) seeking to implead them as plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the said suit, was allowed. 2. The plaintiff filed the said suit against the defendants for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the proposed petitioners that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has sold away the suit schedule property to them and hence they want to come on record in the suit to safeguard their interest. 3. Injunction is a remedy of an equitable nature and since equity acts in personam, injunction also operates in personam. Since injunction operates in personam, it does not run with the land. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Major P.T.Choudary V. Mohammed Abdul Basheer Khan[1], wherein it is held as under: “The judgment is from the Supreme Court and this Court is bound to follow the same. But, it may be pointed out that whether a transaction was hit by Section 52 of the Act or not cannot be decided in an application for impleadment. The proper course appears to be that after impleadment the question of application of Section 52 of the Act would be decided in the trial. But, since there is a direct judgment of the Supreme Court, this court has no option, but to follow the judgment and reverse the order of the trial Court.” In another decision in Ramesh Chawla V. Srihari[2], the case relied on by the petitioners, at para No.15 it was held as under: - “In Bibi Zubaida Khatoon V. Nabi HassanSaheb (supra), the Supreme Court after referrinfg to Sarvinder Singh V. Dalip Singh (supra) upheld the order of the High Court of Patna rejecting revision petition under Section 115 of CPC upholding the order of the trial Court refusing to implead the subsequent purchasers. The Supreme Court held: 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 Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner being a transferee pendente lite without leave of the Court cannot, as 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 instance case, the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons for rejecting such joinder stating that the suit is long pending since 1983 and prima fade 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.” In the aforesaid case, the petition filed seeking to come on record was not accepted by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of this Court in Jogani Mallaiah V. Y.Suresh Babu[3], wherein at para No.20 it is held as under: - “In the light of the findings recorded above, it cannot be laid down as broad proposition that under no circumstances in a suit for perpetual injunction a transferee pendente lite be permitted to come on record. It is made clear that a matter to be decided depending upon the facts and circumstances of the given case. In a suit of this nature where the rights relating to immovable property are involved, especially, taking into consideration the nature of the decree which had been passed by the Court of first instances, the appellate Court entertained an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC at the instance of non-parties to the litigation, the purchasers pendent elite, thought it fit to receive such documents and further thought it fit that it may not be proper to record evidence at the appellate stage and thought of giving opportunity to both the parties, and hence, made an order of remand. This Court is well satisfied that both in law and also on the ground of justness and equity the impugned order of remand needs no disturbance at the hands of this Court.” In the above case, this Court, considering the facts and circumstances therein, held that even in a suit for perpetual injunction the purchasers pendente lite can come on record. 6. To bring the case within sub-rule 1 of Rule 10 of Order I of C.P.C., the following conditions must be fulfilled: - (i) the suit must have been filed in the name of a wrong person as the plaintiff; (ii) such mistake must be bona fide and genuine; and (iii) substitution or addition of plaintiff must be necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. 7. A person seeking the relief of injunction should show the violation of his right by the act complained of and if that act is carried into effect it must result in the infringement of his legal right. In the instant case, even if the proposed parties are allowed to come on record, no relief can be granted to them because they have not stated that the defendants are trying to interfere with their possession over the suit schedule properties after their purchase of the same. So, presence of the proposed parties may not be necessary for the purpose of deciding or resolving the issue before the trial Court. Impleading the proposed petitioners as plaintiffs in the said suit is not shown to be proper or necessary. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as there is no allegation of whatsoever with regard to breach of an obligation or infringement of legal right. 8. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 09th February, 2011 DR [1] 2007 (2) ALD 675 [2] 2005 (3) ALD 4 [3] 2007 (4) ALT 440