KUNDALIK HINDURAO PATIL Vs. GUNDA HARI KHOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/plaintiff s application to implead a third person who is in possession of the property in view of the subsequent events is rejected by the trial Court. It was moved under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, "CPC"). The suit is for removal of encroachment and for possession. Therefore, whosoever is in physical possession even though in view of subsequent events, is a necessary party for proper adjudication of the dispute.

(2.) The learned trial Judge by relying on the observations made by the Apex Court in para 6 of its decision in Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh, reported in 1997 (1) Mh.L.J. Page 539, held that the transferee pendentilite need not be impleaded as party to the suit. The relevant observations in the said para 6 reads thus:

(3.) The person who is the main party in the suit if transfers such property and/or alienates the premises or the property, it will create great difficulty during the execution of the decree. In a suit of this nature which is basically for removal of encroachment and possession, such transfer need detail scrutiny and inquiry for proper adjudication of the issues, otherwise such decree in the absence of the person who is in physical possession will be futile.