(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Order, dated 06.03.2025, passed in I.A. No. 72 of 2025 in O.S. No. 3 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, YSR District, and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 3 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, YSR District, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition and pass)

1. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present Revision Petition, challenging the Order dated 06.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.72 of 2025 in O.S.No.3 of 2018 by the learned V Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Rayachoty (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby and whereunder, petition under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to add the proposed party as defendant No.7, was dismissed.

2. Revision Petitioners are the plaintiffs, and respondent Nos.1 to 6 are the defendant Nos.1 to 6, in O.S.No.3 of 2018 and respondent No.7 is the proposed party. Parties in the present Revision Petition are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. Plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Rayachoty against the defendant Nos.1 to 6 for the reliefs of (i) declaration, to declare the right and title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property, consequentially to restrain the defendants and their men and associates form interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the schedule property by means of Permanent Injunction, and (ii) to direct the concerned for correction of entries in revenue record by entering the names of plaintiffs in respect of the schedule property and for costs.

4. During pendency of suit proceedings, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.72 of 2025 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking the trial Court to implead one Peram Thanuj Yaswanth Reddy, who is arrayed as proposed respondent No.7 in the said application, as defendant No.7 in O.S.No.3 of 2018 on the ground that defendant No.2 executed nominal deed in favour of proposed party in respect of schedule property and therefore, the said proposed party is proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings.

5. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 and proposed party filed their respective counters in the said application, denying the allegations levelled the petition-affidavit contending inter alia that the defendant No.2 never executed nominal deed in favour of proposed party in respect of schedule property as alleged by the plaintiffs and the allegation was vague and the same was created and concocted story for the purpose of filing the application. It was further contended that the petition is not maintainable without furnishing the particulars of document and schedule property.

6. The trial Court vide Order dated 06.03.2025 dismissed the I.A.No.72 of 2025. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: (paragraph Nos.4 and 5)

           “4. This Court find force in the said contention of respondents/defendants including proposed respondent No.7/ defendant No.7. Though the petitioners/plaintiffs have stated in the petition that respondent No.2/defendant No.2 has executed nominal deed in favour of proposed respondent No.7/defendant No.7 for the suit property, neither the nature of the said document nor date of the execution of the document was mentioned in the petition, so also the copy of the alleged document also not annexed with the present petition. Having considered the same, the petitioner filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is a vague one. Moreover, the respondents/ defendants including the proposed respondent No.7/defendant No.7 have contended that no such nominal document was executed by respondent No.2/defendant No.2 as alleged by the petitioners/ plaintiffs in the petition. Having considered the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is devoid of merit.

           5. It is relevant to note here that, even assuming that respondent No.2/defendant No.2 has executed any document in favour of proposed respondent No.7/defendant No.7 for the suit property during the pendency of the suit, the said document is subject to the result of the present suit. Hence, non-adding of the proposed respondent No.7/defendant No.7 would not cause any prejudice to the petitioners/plaintiffs who have filed the present suit.”

           Aggrieved of the impugned order, the present Civil Revision Petition was filed by the plaintiffs.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs would contend that the proposed party is essential for effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit and any decree passed in the absence of proposed party, would be ineffective and it would result in multiplicity of proceedings. In the written statement of 1st defendant, he clearly admitted about the execution of Registered Sale Deed, dated 05.11.2018 in favour of proposed party i.e. respondent No.7 and such categorical admission establishes the direct interest of proposed party in the subject matter of the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would further contend that in the additional written statement, there was a specific contention that the proposed party is necessary party and the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of property party, as the name of respondent No.7 was mutated in revenue records and his right over the schedule property was recognized. These aspects are suffice to come to a conclusion that the proposed respondent No.7 is proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings in O.S.No.3 of 2018, but these points have not been adjudicated in right perspective.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants and respondent No.7/proposed party would contend that no nominal deed was executed by 2nd defendant in favour of proposed party/ respondent No.7 as alleged by the petitioners/plaintiffs. Learned counsel would further contend that the plaintiffs neither furnished the details of the nominal deed nor date of execution of deed, therefore, the petition is not maintainable as the plaintiffs sought vague relief. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners/plaintiffs and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 7. Perused the entire material available on record.

10. The point that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is “Whether the impugned Order dated 06.03.2025 in I.A.No.72 of 2025 in O.S.No.3 of 2018 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Rayachoty suffers from any perversity, illegality, irregularity or impropriety of law requiring any interference of this Court?

11. Order I CPC prescribes Parties to Suits and Order I Rule 10 CPC deals with suit in name of wrong plaintiff, which reads as under:

           (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.

           (2) 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.

           (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent.

           (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.— Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant.

           (5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), Section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons.

12. A plain reading of the above proviso enunciates that the Court may direct implead of any party who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the Court may be necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the disputes arose in the proceedings.

13. As per the contents of the additional written statement, the defendants categorically admitted that a Registered Sale Deed, dated 05.11.2018 was executed in favour of proposed party/respondent No.7 and therefore, the plaintiffs contend that the proposed party is subsequent purchaser and his impleadment to the suit proceedings is very much essential, as he is proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings.

14. Undoubtedly, a subsequent purchaser is often considered as proper party, although not always a necessary party without whom the suit cannot proceed. A proper party is someone whose presence enables the Court to completely and effectively adjudicate all the issues involved. Indisputably, transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is subject to the Doctrine of Lis Pendens (Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882) i.e., the purchaser is bound by the decision of the Court, even if they were not formally added as a party. It is a settled law that it is open to the Court to add any such person as necessary party in the suit to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the question involved in the suit. However, for exercise of power under this Rule, the Court has to come to a finding that the party is a necessary or property party. Therefore, the addition of parties would depend upon the judicial discretion which has to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case.

15. The schedule property is situated at Korlagunta village, Galiveedu Mandal, YSR District in S.No.170/1 to an extent of Ac.0.88 cents out of Ac.1.32 cents, S.No.170/2 to an extent of Ac.1.16 cents and S.No.32 to an extent of Ac.3.45 cents. As per the contents of the additional written statement of 1st defendant, the schedule property in S.No.32 does not exclusively belong to the plaintiffs and he got half share in it and he was in possession and enjoyment of his share till its alienation in favour of proposed party/respondent No.7 vide Registered Sale Deed, dated 05.11.2018. As per the contents of the additional written statement, 1st defendant concedes that he sold the part of schedule property to the proposed party/respondent No.7.

16. In M/s. J.N.Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan and Ors.( 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 519.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while it is not mandatory to join the subsequent purchaser as a necessary party, their joinder as a proper party is often prudent to bind their rights and forestall conflicting claims. Further, in Asian Hotels (North) Limited v. Alok Kumar Lodha and others((2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 145.) the Hon’ble Apex Court, at paragraph No.37, held as under:

           “…The principle that the plaintiff‟s is the dominus litis shall be applicable only in a case where parties sought to be added as defendants are necessary and/or proper parties. The plaintiff‟s cannot be permitted to join any party as a defendant who may not be necessary and/or proper parties at all on the ground that the plaintiff‟s is the dominus litis.”

           Further, in Banarsi Dass v. Panna Lal(Civil Revision Petition No.31 of 1968, dated 12.01.1968 on the file of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.) the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held as under:

           “Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for addition of two kinds of parties, namely, (1) necessary parties who ought to have been joined and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed at all, and (2) proper parties, whose presence enables the Court to adjudicate more effectively and „completely‟ all the questions involved is the suit. Under sub-para (2) of Order 1, Rule 10, a person may be added as a party to a suit in two cases only, i.e., when he ought to have been joined and is not so joined, i.e., when he is a necessary party, or, when without his presence the questions in the suit cannot be completely decided. There is no jurisdiction to add a party in any other case merely because that would save a third person the expense and botheration of a separate suit for seeking adjudication of a collateral matter, which was not directly and substantively in issue in the suit into which he seeks intrusion. A person cannot be added as a defendant merely because he would be incidentally affected by the judgment.”

17. The present suit was filed for declaration, to declare the right and title of the plaintiffs over the schedule property. The plaintiffs were disputing the right and title of defendants over the schedule property. When such is the case, transfer of property or selling the part of schedule property to proposed party/respondent No.7 during the pendency of suit proceeding, is subject to the Doctrine of Lis Pendens i.e., the proposed party/respondent No.7 is bound by the decision of the Court, even if he was not formally added as a party. However, he cannot be added as a party- defendant to the suit, merely because he would be incidentally affected by the outcome of the suit proceedings. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, subject to the observation made supra, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Order dated 06.03.2025 in I.A.No.72 of 2025 in O.S.No.3 of 2018 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Rayachoty does not suffer from any infirmity.

18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

           Consequently, the interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.3 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Rayachoty, as ordered by this Court on 07.07.2025, stands vacated.

           There shall be no order as to costs.

           As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this CRP shall stand closed.