AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I. Venkatanarayana, J.—Revision petitioner is the plaintiff. The revision petition is directed against the order in I.A. No. 580/1995 on the file of the First Addl. District Munsif''s Court, Madanapalle, seeking to bring third parties on record, who are subsequent purchasers. Plaintiff filed the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., seeking to bring on record the subsequent purchasers, who are D-4 to D-7. The trial Court on an erroneous application of law took the ground that defendants 1 and 2, who have no right and title in the property, executed agreement. The 3rd defendant, said to have executed '' the registered sale deed in favour of defendants 4 to 7 in respect of plaint schedule property, is not a party to the agreement of sale. Hence they are not necessary parties. This view of the trial Court is contrary to the well established legal principles of the Apex Court reported in Lala Durga Prasad and Another Vs. Lala Deep Chand and Others, . wherein the Supreme Court has clearly said that the subsequent purchasers are proper parties to the suit and decree. Following the Apex Court judgment, I hold that the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., has to be allowed. Therefore, the order in I.A. No. 580/95 in O.S. No. 272/94 is set aside. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.