BHIM SINGH Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 13. 12. 1988 executed between the plaintiff and respondents No. 2 to 6 pertaining to 14 bigha and 5 biswa of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakoli. In said suit an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued in favour of the petitioner and against respondents No. 2 to 6 restraining them from transferring, encumbering or parting with possession of the suit land till the next date. The said interim order was extended from time to time and continues to enure in favour of the petitioner. Notwithstanding the order prohibiting respondents No. 2 to 6 from selling the land in question they sold the land to respondent No. 1, Amar Nath, by a registered sale deed on 30. 6. 1997. According to Amar Nath when he applied to the Consolidation Authority for mutating the land in his name on 27. 8. 2003 he was informed of the Court injunction and a refusal by the revenue authorities to mutate the suit land in his name. Accordingly, he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a defendant in the suit. The said application was allowed vide order dated 16. 10. 2003, principally on the ground that a purchaser under the defendants would be a necessary party for the reason if plaintiff ultimately succeeds the purchaser under the defendants would be required to join in executing a conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff and hence his presence before the Court would be necessary.

(2.) THE order impleading respondent No. 1 as a defendant in the suit has been challenged by the plaintiff by way of the instant petition.

(3.) THE issue which arises for consideration has to be answered in light of the provisions of sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil procedure. It reads as under:-