ORDER : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District in IA No.448 of 2023 in OS.No.211 of 2006, dated 10.07.2023. 2. Petitioner is the proposed defendant No.12 and respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the respondents-plaintiffs and the respondent Nos.6 to 15 are other respondents in IA.No.448 of 2023 in OS.No.211 of 2006. 3. It is mentioned in the cause title of the revision that respondent Nos.6 to 15 are not necessary parties. 4. Notices got issued to respondent Nos.2 to 5-respondents- plaintiffs in the CRP are served on 21.08.2023, none appeared for them. 5.1. Petitioner has filed IA.No.448 of 2023 under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to implead him as proposed defendant No.12 in the suit. 5.2. It is stated in the affidavit that petitioner’s vendors by name Mujahid Hussain and Irfan Hussain have purchased the property admeasuring Acs.04-09 guntas in survey No.135 of Pamena Village from respondent Nos.6 to 8-defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the said purchasers have sold the land in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed, dated 20.09.2016 bearing document No.10796 of 2016, ever since he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the above said property without any interruption and he obtained E-pass book and the Government has also sanctioned Rythu Bhandu, recently he came to know about the pendency of the suit when he attended Junior Civil Judge, Chevella in another matter. Respondent Nos.2 to 5-plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 taking advantage of the suit filed by them continuously interfering in the petitioner's possession and that he is a proper and necessary party to the suit and prayed to allow the same. 6. Respondent Nos.2 to 5-plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 filed counter and contended that respondent Nos.6 to 8-defendant Nos.1 to 3 are not the owners and possessors, they do not have any right title over the properties covered in survey No.135 and they have no right to execute registered sale deeds in favour of Mujahid Hussain and Irfan Hussain and the sale deeds dated 31.03.2003, 27.01.2011, 05.06.2012 and 20.09.2016 are illegal, void documents and not binding on them. The proposed defendant in collusion with respondent Nos.6 to 8-defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed the implead petition to settle the scores, if the proposed party is really interested to get himself impleaded into the suit then he ought to have got impleaded all the parties or his vendors in the suit. The purchase made by the petitioner is subsequent to the filing of the suit as such, the transaction is hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and prayed to dismiss the same. 7. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner holding that “the petitioner is not a necessary party to be impleaded and without his presence the suit can be completely adjudicated” which is impugned in the CRP. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-proposed defendant No.12 submits that the order of the learned trial Court is contrary to law and probabilities of the case which suffers serious infirmities of law and fact and the learned trial Court carried away by presumptions and assumptions and erroneously dismissed the application. The finding of the learned trial Court that petitioner did not implead his vendors as parties to the suit as defendants is erroneous, the learned Judge failed to see that the petitioner is not a plaintiff to implead his vendors as parties to the suit, it is for the respondent Nos.2 to 5-plaintiffs to implead all proper and necessary parties in the suit. The learned trial Court observation that doctrine of lis pendence is applicable and the person related to the suit is bound by the decision of the Court is erroneous and the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the petition filed by the petitioner. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Yogesh Goyanka Vs. Govind and Others , (2024) 7 SCC 524 . 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material. 10. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court? 11. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.6 to 15 herein are defendant Nos.1 to 10 in the suit vide OS.No.211 of 2006. 12. 10. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court? 11. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.6 to 15 herein are defendant Nos.1 to 10 in the suit vide OS.No.211 of 2006. 12. It is stated in the plaint that respondent Nos.2 to 5-plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring Acs.16-21guntas in survey No.135 and Acs.03-27 guntas in survey No.138 situated at Pamana Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which are shown as item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property and they acquired the suit schedule property being the only grandson of late K.Ramaiah to whom their father late K.Yellaiah is the only son. In the first week of November, 2003, they have obtained certified copies of Pahanies to avail loan facility from the Bank and to their surprise they noticed that the defendant’s names are appearing in the pahanies against suit schedule properties from the year 1971-72 to 2003 in pattedar and possessor columns. They filed revision before the Collector, Ranga Reddy vide LR No.D5/390/2004 and the same was disposed of on 06.05.2006 directing the respondent Nos.2 to 5-plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court under Section 8(2) of A.P. R.O.R Act, 1971. The relief prayed in the suit is to declare respondent Nos.2 to 5-plaintiffs as absolute owners and possessors in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of suit schedule properties and also to declare the entries made in the name of the defendants (respondent Nos.6 to 15 herein) as null and void without authority and not binding on the plaintiffs (respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein) and also restraining the defendants (respondent Nos.6 to 15 herein) from alienating or transferring the suit schedule property in favour of third parties. 13. Respondent No.6-defendant No.1 has filed his written statement and contended that his father by name P.Yellaiah was the Kauldar and absolute owner, possessor and pattedar of agricultural land bearing survey No.135 admeasuring Acs.16-21 guntas from 1944 onwards, thereafter he has purchased the property from its original owner. Since then his father is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said property as absolute owner and possessor thereof. Since then his father is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said property as absolute owner and possessor thereof. Defendant No.5 (respondent No.10 herein) in collusion with the village assistant by name M.Pratap Reddy, created documents and incorporated his name in respect of land admeasuring Acs.08-11 guntas out of Acs.16-21 guntas in survey No.135 and thereafter defendant No.5 (respondent No.10 herein) alienated the land to various persons. Defendant No.5 in collusion with the plaintiffs (respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein) hatched a plan and filed a suit. Defendant No.1- respondent No.6 herein is in peaceful possession of land admeasuring Acs.08-10 guntas in survey No.135. 14. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 (respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein) have adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1 (respondent No.6 herein). 15. Defendant Nos.7 to 9 (respondent Nos.12 to 14 herein) have filed their separate written statement contending that defendant No.5 (respondent No.10 herein) has sold an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas to defendant No.6 and also sold Acs.07-00 guntas to defendant No.10 under registered sale deed, dated 20.05.1985 bearing document No.994 of 1985. Defendant No.10 in turn sold Acs.07-00 guntas of land to defendant Nos.7 and 8 under registered sale deed bearing document No.338 of 1994, dated 25.02.1994, the sale deed was implemented in the revenue records and their names are also recorded as pattedars and possessors. 16. Doctrine of lis pendence as provided under Section 52 TPA does not render all transfers pendente lite to be void ab initio, it merely renders rights arising from such transfers as subservient to the rights of the parties to the pending litigation and subject to any direction that the Court may pass thereunder: (See Yogesh Goyanka, (2024) 7 SCC 524 ). 17. Suit is filed by the sole plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) in the year 2006, after his death his LRs were brought on record as plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 (respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein). The affidavit filed by the petitioner goes to show that his vendors by name Mujahid Hussain and Irfan Hussain have purchased the land admeasuring Acs.04-09 guntas in survey No.135 through registered sale deed, dated 31.03.2003 bearing document No.2233 of 2003 much prior to the filing of the suit and thereafter petitioner has purchased the same through registered sale deed on 20.09.2016 i.e., during pendency of the suit. The affidavit further goes to show that his vendors have also purchased some portions of the land in survey No.135 from defendant Nos.1 to 4 (respondent Nos.6 to 9 herein) on 27.01.2011 bearing document No.190 of 2011 and on 05.06.2012 bearing document No.2489 of 2012. 18. A necessary party is without whose presence no effect to complete adjudication of the dispute can be made and no relief can be granted. The Property purchased by the petitioner is in survey No.135 admeasuring Acs.04-09 guntas and item 1 of the suit schedule property is Acs.16-21 guntas which is also in survey No.135. The observation of the learned trial Court that the petitioner cannot be considered as necessary party to the suit and without his presence the suit can be completely adjudicated is perverse in view of the decision of the Supreme Court stated supra at Para No.16. 19. Though the issues are settled and the evidence of the plaintiffs (respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein) is completed and the suit is coming up for defendant evidence, which is not a bar to file the application to implead a party in the suit. 20. On reading of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, which states that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings add parties whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit be added. As rightly contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the learned trial Court was in error in observing that the petitioner failed to implead his vendors in the present petition as defendants. The vendors of the petitioner have purchased the property much prior to filing of the suit. It is averred in the petition that respondent Nos.2 to 5-plaintiffs are interfering in his physical possession and that it is just and necessary to implead him as a proposed defendant No.12 in the suit. 21. This court is of the view that the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the lis which enables the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions involved therein. In view of the reasons above, the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from perversity and requires interference of this Court. 22. 21. This court is of the view that the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the lis which enables the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions involved therein. In view of the reasons above, the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from perversity and requires interference of this Court. 22. CRP is allowed and the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District in IA.No.448 of 2023 in OS No.211 of 2006, dated 10.07.2023 is set aside. Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner to implead him as defendant No.12 in the suit is allowed without costs. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.