ORDER Respondents 1 to 8 filed O.S. No. 50 of 1999 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar, against respondents 9 to 14 for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. One of the items was the land in Sy.No.784 of Burgula Village, Farooqnagar Mandai, Mahaboobnagar District. The father of respondents 11 to 14, by name, Lingaram Pentaiah, was granted Occupancy Right Certificate for that land under the provisions of the A.P (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Respondents 11 to 14 are said to have executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner by transferring an extent of Acs. 11.14 guntas. 2. An ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 26-06-2000. Thereafter, final decree proceedings were initiated. On coming to know the same, the petitioner got itself impleaded in the final decree proceedings. Subsequently, it filed O.S.No.69 of 2003 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar against the respondents herein for the relief of setting aside the preliminary decree. During the course of trial in that suit. It appears that respondents 1 to 8 have raised an objection as to the very maintainability of the suit, as long as the preliminary decree is intact. It is in this context, that the petitioner filed I.A. No. 556 of 2002 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., with a prayer to implead it as defendant No.7 in the suit. I.A.No.557 of 2002 is filed under Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to recall or set said the ex parte preliminary decree. 3. Through separate orders dated 06-12-2007, the trial Court dismissed the applications. Hence these two revisions. 4. Sri K. Mahipathy Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once his client was impleaded in the final decree proceedings, there cannot be any objection for impleading it in the suit itself, inasmuch as a suit for partition would be pending, till the final decree is passed. He further submits that I.A.No.557 of 2002 had to be filed under Section 151 C.P.C., instead of Order IX Rule 9, since the petitioner did not become party to the suit, as yet. 5. Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has already instituted an independent suit for setting aside the preliminary decree, and that it cannot be impleaded as defendant in the suit. 5. Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has already instituted an independent suit for setting aside the preliminary decree, and that it cannot be impleaded as defendant in the suit. 6. The petitioner claims to have purchased a valuable item of property from respondents 11 to 14, who figured as defendants in the suit, filed by respondents 1 to 8. Being a purchaser from some of the coparceners, normally the petitioner has to work out its remedies, depending on the allotment made in the final decree. It can insist on the property, purchased by it, being allotted to its vendors. Such a course would be possible, only when the suit for partition is contested, and the property purchased by the third party represents the probable share of his vendor. In the instant case, an ex parte preliminary decree was obtained. The vendors of the petitioner did not contest. Having sold away the property by treating it as their exclusive one, respondents 11 to 14 ought to have offered necessary resistance. By the time the petitioner came to know about the proceedings, the preliminary decree was passed, and accordingly they got impleaded in the final decree proceedings. 7. As long as the preliminary decree remains intact, there is hardly anything that can be done in the final decree, to protect the rights of the petitioner. The scope of the final decree is confined to division of property into shares, by metes and bounds, and allotment thereof to the concerned sharers. The question as to whether the land purchased by the petitioner was liable to be partitioned, at all, can be the subject-matter of the preliminary decree done. In Raj Kumar v. Sardarilal (2004) 2 SCC 601 = 2004 (2) ALT 1 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person who is not party to the suit, for partition, can come on record by taking recourse to Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. Reference was made to Section 146 of C.P.C., which confers right upon the persons, claiming through parties to the suit, to make applications. 8. The petitioner, no doubt, filed O.S. No. 69 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar, against the respondents herein, for setting aside the decree in O.S.No.50 of 1999. 8. The petitioner, no doubt, filed O.S. No. 69 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar, against the respondents herein, for setting aside the decree in O.S.No.50 of 1999. An independent suit becomes necessary, if the proceedings, which gave rise to the decree, are not pending. Since a suit for partition is deemed to be pending, till a final decree is passed, the petitioner can certainty get impleaded in the suit, and pursue the remedies. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is already a party to the final decree proceedings. It is axiomatic that he can become party to the suit in its entirety. 9. Across the Bar, it is stated that the petitioner intends to withdraw 0.S.No.69 of 2003. Hence, there should not be any difficulty in impleading the petitioner as one of the defendants in the suit. 10. So far as I.A.No.557 of 2002 is concerned, the petitioner presented the same under Section 151 C.P.C., by claiming the relief, which is squarely referable to Rule 9 of Order IX C.P.C. The application is untenable, under Section 151 C.P.C. The petiti6ner could have waited, till it became party, before filing the necessary application. 11. Hence, the C.R.P.No.572 of 2008 is allowed, and the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.556 of 2002 is set aside. Consequently, the said I.A. is allowed, and the petitioner is impleaded as defendant No.7 in O.S.No.50 of 1999. 12. C.R.P. No. 600 of 2008 is dismissed. It is left open to the petitioner to file appropriate application, in accordance with law. 13. There shall be no order as to costs.