HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.188 OF 2011 ORDER: The respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S. No.27 of 2009 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, against the 3rd respondent for eviction from the suit schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents 1 and 2 alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner through sale deed, dated 30-11-2010. In view of these developments, the petitioner filed I.A. No.513 of 2009, claiming two fold relief, viz., to implead himself as plaintiff No.3 and to permit amendment of the pleadings, incorporating the subsequent amendments. The application is opposed by the 3rd respondent. Through order, dated 22-12-2010, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. 2. Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Madhavi Priya Manthena, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. No relief is claimed against the respondents 1 and 2. 3. The suit was filed in respect of an item of immovable property for recovery of possession thereof. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner purchased the very property. Therefore, it becomes necessary for him to get himself impleaded in the suit. Naturally, he steps into the shoes of respondents 1 and 2 herein i.e. plaintiffs in the suit. Further, it is also necessary that the event of purchase of the property by the petitioner must be incorporated in the plaint. 4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent is correct when she says that the petitioner ought to have filed two separate petitions. As a matter of fact, he can seek amendment of the plaint only after he becomes a party to the suit. However, the error is not so serious as to render the I.A. totally untenable. Further, when the nature of rights of the individual parties are clear, it is not advisable to stand on technicalities. Such an approach, may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The respondents 1 and 2 did not deny the factum of sale of the property. As of now, it is only the petitioner herein, that is interested in the property. 5. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, the I.A. shall stand allowed, as a result of which, the petitioner shall be impleaded as plaintiff No.3 and he is permitted to amend the plaint as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J April 15, 2011. KTL