TARADEVI Vs. JAIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Trial Court has erroneously rejected the applications filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10 and under Order XI Rule 17 read with Sec. with Sec. 151 of the C.P.C. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1-Jaikumar sold the property in question to the proposed defendant. Therefore, to avoid multiplicity of suits, the plaintiffs/petitioners have filed these applications to incorporate pleadings regarding such subsequent transfer and to implead the purchasers as defendants. The learned Trial Court, relying on the dictum laid down in the case of Vidhur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 384, held that since the disputed property was alienated during the pendency of the suit, therefore, the subsequent purchaser is not at all necessary party to the suit. In this regard, He also relied upon the case i.e. Anurag Agrawal v. Kailash Yadav and the judgment/order dtd. 1/3/2023 passed in M.P. No. 5250 of 2022. It is also submitted that keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Vidhur Impex (supra) wherein it has held that though such subsequent purchaser is not necessary party to the suit. However, the proposed parties who are claiming under the vendors cannot be said to be stranger/ third party whose presence is necessary with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the said application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/State has opposed the application and respondent No.1 did not appear before this Court.