PRADEEP KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. BANA BEHARI MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner assails the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.423 of 2004 whereby the learned Civil Judge has rejected his petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C. to be impleaded as a party -defendant to the suit.

(2.) THE present opposite party No.1 has filed the aforesaid civil suit against the present opposite party Nos.2 to 11 seeking relief of partition of the suit property and allotment of his separate share. Admittedly in FAO No.278 of 2005 (arising out of the suit) between the parties to the suit, this Court vide order dated 07.11.2006 injuncted the parties from alienating any portion of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. While the injunction order was operating, defendant Nos.1 and 2 sold a specific portion of the suit property appertaining to Plot No.1000, Khata No.1416 measuring Ac.0.200 in Mouza -Bhubaneswar to the intervenor writ petitioner vide two registered sale deeds on 13.11.2009. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C. before the trial Court stating that after purchase of the said portion of the suit land while he was constructing a house thereover, the plaintiff opposite party No.1 along with some others prohibited him from proceeding with the construction stating that the said property is the subject matter of a partition suit. It was further asserted by the petitioner that his vendors (defendant Nos.1 and 2) never disclosed before him about the pendency of the suit and rather represented that the property 'was free from all encumbrances and litigation. It was, therefore, stated that the intervenor having purchased the property bona fide for value has acquired interest therein and, therefore, he being a necessary as well as proper party should be impleaded as a defendant in the suit.

(3.) THE first question to be decided is whether the petitioner by virtue of his purchase of part of the suit land from defendant Nos.1 and 2 in violation or breach of the injunction order has acquired valid right, title and interest thereto or the sale is invalid? In the case of Surjit Singh (supra) where in a partition suit, in spite of order of injunction restraining the parties from alienation of any part of the suit property one of the defendants transferred his rights under the preliminary decree, and the transferees made an application under Order 22 Rule 10, C.P.C. to be impleaded as parties, the apex Court held as follows: