Or. 1, rule 10 C.P.C. - subsequent purchaser - in violation of injunction orders - not maintainable = No impleading petition is maintainable by a purchaser pendenti lit in contempt proceedings filed under Or.39 Rule 2 A of C.P.C = KONA VENKATA RADHA KRISHNA & ANOTHER VS KONA NEELAVENI @ SUSEELA & 2 OTHERS = published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=1790&year=2013

Or. 1, rule 10 C.P.C. - subsequent purchaser - in violation of injunction orders - not maintainable = No impleading petition is maintainable by a purchaser pendenti lit in contempt proceedings filed under Or.39 Rule 2 A of C.P.C =

As the injunction orders operate in personam, merely alleging that he has purchased the property subsequently, the 2^nd petitioner cannot come on record in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.  Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.674 of 2012 in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.

          For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 

CRP 1790 / 2013

CRPSR 10244 / 2013

PETITIONER RESPONDENT KONA VENKATA RADHA KRISHNA & ANOTHER   VS KONA NEELAVENI @ SUSEELA & 2 OTHERS PET.ADV. : RAMA GOPAL RESP.ADV. : RAJESWARI SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227 DISTRICT:  VISAKHAPATNAM

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1790 of 2013

Dated: 08.11.2013

Between:

Kona Venkata Radha Krishna & another.

…..Petitioners

And

Kona Neelaveni @ Suseela & others.

…..Respondents

 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1790 of 2013

ORDER :

          This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.859 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, aggrieved by order dated 18.09.2012, passed in I.A.No.674 of 2012 in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.

          The suit was originally filed by 1^st petitioner herein and the 2^nd petitioner was impleaded as plaintiff No.2, alleging that he has purchased plaint-A and B schedule properties.  The 1^st petitioner was a party to the miscellaneous application in I.A.No.337 of 2003, in which, injunction orders are granted.  Alleging violation of such injunction orders, the 1^st plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1050 of 2006 in I.A.No.337 of 2003 under Order 39, Rule 2-A of CPC.  Seeking his impleadment in the said application, the 2^nd petitioner herein has filed the present application in I.A.No.674 of 2012.  The trial Court, by impugned order, dismissed the said petition.  As against the same, this revision is filed.

          It is contended by the learned counsel for 2^nd petitioner that     in view of his purchase of property, he stepped into the shoe of 1^stpetitioner, as such, he is entitled to come on record as 2^nd petitioner in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.  It is to be noticed that I.A.No.1050 of 2006 is filed alleging violation of injunction orders obtained by the               1^st plaintiff in the suit.  As the injunction orders operate in personam, merely alleging that he has purchased the property subsequently, the 2^nd petitioner cannot come on record in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.  Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.674 of 2012 in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.

          For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 

Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.  No order as to costs.  Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________

                                            R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

8^th November 2013

ajr