THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.325 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.154 of 2007 in the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, against respondents 2 to 4, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The 2nd respondent is said to have sold a part of the schedule property in favour of the petitioner. The 1st respondent filed I.A.No.1399 of 2007, under Rule 1 of Order X C.P.C., with a prayer to implead the petitioner herein, as defendant No.4 to the suit. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order, dated 23.10.2009. The same is challenged in this C.R.P. Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 2nd respondent executed an agreement of sale-cum- G.P.A. in favour of one Basheeruddin, much before the 1st respondent filed the suit, and Basheeruddin, in turn, sold the property in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner constructed a house upon the plot purchased by him and the question of claiming any relief of injunction, against such property, does not arise. He contends that the petitioner is neither necessary, nor proper party to the suit. Sri K.K.Waghray, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the sale in favour of the petitioner took place during the pendency of the suit and being the purchaser from a G.P.A., of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit. In a suit for injunction, it is only those persons, from whom the plaintiff apprehends threat of interference with the possession that would be added as defendants. If during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff faces interference in respect of the same property, from third parties, they can also be made parties. Inclusion of transferees from the defendants, who are already arrayed in the suit, also becomes necessary. It is not as if the 1st respondent intended to implead an utter stranger to the dispute as a defendant in the suit. It is a matter of record that the petitioner purchased part of the suit schedule property subsequent to the filing of the suit through an alleged G.P.A. of the 2nd respondent. He claims rights, vis-à-vis part of the suit schedule property. The question as to whether the possession of the same is with the petitioner, or his transferor, as on the date of filing of the suit, or whether the 1st respondent had effective possession thereof, needs to be considered at the hearing of the suit. It is too early to arrive at any conclusion, on that aspect. Being the purchaser of part of the suit schedule property, the petitioner is certainly a necessary party. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the trial Court. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:04.08.2010 GJ