Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 5-1-2012 in I.A.No.928/2011 in O.S.No.584/2009 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. 2. The petitioner is a third party to the above mentioned suit instituted by respondent Nos.1 and 2, for multiple reliefs. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also filed I.A.No.1239/2009 in the said suit and obtained an order of interim injunction. Some of the reliefs claimed in the said suit are as under: “d. for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into any contracts or transactions whatsoever in respect of the plaint schedule properties. e. for granting a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them, their representatives and their agents from ever interfering with the 2nd plaintiff’s management and control of plaint B schedule property.” The petitioner has purchased plaint B schedule property from respondent Nos.3 to 6/defendant Nos.1 to 4, pendente lite. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed I.A.No.928/2011 under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”), seeking impleadment of the petitioner as one of the defendants to the suit. The lower Court, by the order under revision, allowed the same. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a pendente lite transferee of the plaint B schedule property. If respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs succeed in the suit, the whole transfer in favour of the petitioner stands invalidated in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not a necessary or a proper party for proper and effective adjudication of the suit. The Judgment in Khemchand Shankar Choudhari Vs. Vishnu Hari Patil ( (1983) 1 SCC 18 ), on which reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel, instead of supporting the case of the petitioner, runs against it. The Judgment in Khemchand Shankar Choudhari Vs. Vishnu Hari Patil ( (1983) 1 SCC 18 ), on which reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel, instead of supporting the case of the petitioner, runs against it. In the said Judgment, the Supreme Court held that a pendente lite transferee is a representative in interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest; that Rule 10 of Order XXII of the Code clearly recognizes the right of a transferee to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and to be heard before any order is made and that if he does not apply to be impleaded, he may suffer by default on account of any order passed in the proceedings, but if he applies to be impleaded as a party and to be heard, he has got to be so impleaded and heard. Though this Judgment has not dealt with a case where an unwilling purchaser pendente lite was sought to be impleaded, from the legal position elucidated in the said Judgment, it cannot be disputed that a pendente lite transferee is a proper, though not a necessary party. Far from affecting its interests, the impleadment of the petitioner would, in fact, enable it to putforth its defence against any of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs, if it wishes to do so. 4. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order of the lower Court warranting interference of this Court while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 5. As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.No.327/2012 is disposed of as infructuous.