ORDER : B S Bhanumathi, J. This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order, dated 16.06.2022, dismissing I.A.No.269 of 2021 in O.S.No.44 of 2014 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Rajampet, filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC read with Order VI Rule 17 CPC to implead the respondents 7 & 8 as defendants 7 & 8 in the suit and to permit to make consequential amendments to the plaint. 2. The proposed parties and the consequential amendments are as follows: Proposed parties:- 7. Akepati Papi Reddy S/o Subba Reddy, aged about 56 years, Hindu living by cultivation, residing at Buttireddigaripalle Village, Nallapureddipalle Post, Penagalur Mandal, Kadapa District. 8. Pattem Sankaraiah S/o Ramaswamy, aged about 50 years, Hindu, living by cultivation, residing at Brahmanapalle Village and Post, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District. Proposed Consequntial Amendments:- 1. Add the following a para No.6 of the plaint:- It is submitted that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have sold away the suit schedule property to the defendant Nos.7 and 8 by executing a sham, nominal and fraudulent registered sale deed dated 09- 04-2012 vide document No.1521/2012 with a view to harass the plaintiff. Since the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have sold away the suit schedule property to defendant Nos.7 and 8 they have added as parties to the suit and the registered sale deed dated 09-04-2012 executed in their favour during the pendency of the suit, it is null and not binding on the plaintiff. 2. To alter the para No.6 to 8 of the plaint as para Nos.7 to 9." 3. The revision petitioner filed the suit against the defendants 1 to 3 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the defendants, their men etc. Pending the suit, on death of defendants 2 & 3, defendants No.4 to 6 were added as their legal representatives. 4. Since pending the suit the schedule property was sold, the plaintiff filed the petition stating that subsequent to filing of the suit, the defendants 1 to 3 sold away the entire suit schedule property to the respondents No.7 & 8, vide registered sale deed, dated 09.04.2012, bearing document No.1521 of 2012 and the same came to the knowledge of the plaintiff just before filing of the petition. It is further stated that respondents No.7 & 8 are proper and necessary parties for adjudication of the suit. (b) The petition was opposed by filing common counter of respondents No.1, 4, 5, 6 & 8 (respondents No.2 & 3 died). The respondent No.7 remained ex parte. (c) After hearing the contesting parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the suit can be adjudicated without the presence of respondents No.7 & 8 since they are the purchasers of the property pending the suit. 5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the presence of respondents No.7 & 8 in the suit is very much required for complete adjudication of the suit, more particularly for deciding the title and also to get the decree for perpetual injunction or else, later, the respondents 7 & 8 who steps into the shoes of their vendors would cause obstruction. 7. There is no representation for the respondents No.1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 though they made appearance through a counsel. The respondent No.5 who filed counter along with other respondents before the trial Court has not appeared before this Court. The notice sent to respondent No.5 was returned un-served with an endorsement 'insufficient address'. But, it is pertinent to mention that the respondent No.5 made appearance before the trial Court with the same address. In fact, she contested along with other respondents. Under these circumstances, the notice to respondent No.5 is held sufficient. Though the respondent No.7 remained ex parte before the trial Court, he now appeared before this Court. In any case, since there is no representation for them today, this Court proceeded to hear the petitioner and pass order. 8. It is an admitted fact that a registered sale deed was executed in favour of the respondents No.7 & 8 in respect of the suit schedule property pending the suit. If at all it is a genuine transaction of sale, vendors lose interest in prosecuting the matter and it is the interest of the vendees which would be at stake in the event of not making them as parties to the suit. Unless evidence is lead on the aspect of the sale transaction, no one can conclude at this juncture as to whether the said transaction is genuine or nominal. Unless evidence is lead on the aspect of the sale transaction, no one can conclude at this juncture as to whether the said transaction is genuine or nominal. As such, in the absence of respondents No.7 & 8 in the suit, there cannot be effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. Moreover, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not only the declaration of title, but the plaintiff is seeking the relief of permanent injunction as well. Of course, the relief of permanent injunction is sought not only against the party defendants, but also against their men, followers etc. However, when the alleged vendees are available, if the trial is conducted in their absence, there cannot be complete adjudication of the dispute. It is not only necessary parties; Court has discretion to direct even a proper party to be added to a suit. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to permit the respondents No.7 & 8 to be impleaded as defendants No.7 & 8 in the suit. As can be seen from the order impugned herein, there is no proper appreciation of facts and law in this regard and thus, the trial Court failed to properly exercise its discretionary jurisdiction on legal scale. Therefore, it is a case fit to allow the revision. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 16.06.2022, of III Additional District Judge, Rajampet, in I.A.No.269 of 2021 in O.S.No.44 of 2014. As a sequel, I.A.No.269 of 2021 shall stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.