RAKURTHI PAWAN Vs. BODDA JAGADAMBA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 16.11.2015 in I.A. No. 660/2015, in O.S. No. 61/2011 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, by and under which, the learned Judge allowed the application filed by the 3rd parties/respondents 2 to 17 to come on record as defendants 2 to 17. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 61/2011 for declaration of title and for possession of the schedule property. In the said suit, the court below vide orders dated 12.02.2013 in I.A. No. 2674/2011 granted status quo and also vide orders dated 03.03.2012 in I.A. No. 2675/2011 appointed an Advocate -Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and note down its physical features. While so, the respondents 2 to 17 filed I.A. No. 660/2015 seeking permission to come on record as defendants 2 to 17 in the said suit, stating that they have purchased the schedule property from the defendant -Bodda Jagadambha under registered sale deeds vide Doc. Nos. 4667/2013 to 4672/2013, dated 23.11.2013 and they came to know the pendency of the suit between the petitioner/plaintiff and the defendant with regard to schedule property and hence they claim that they are necessary parties to the suit.

(3.) The petitioner/plaintiff filed counter stating that during pendency of the suit, that too, while the status quo order was in force, the schedule property was sold by the defendant -Jagadamba in favour of respondents 2 to 17 and hence the respondents 2 to 17 will not accrue any right over the schedule property and hence, they are not necessary parties to the suit.