SUDARSAN SAHU Vs. KUNI SAHU & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 1.5.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in C.S. No.95 of 2009. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the application of the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to implead the transferees of the suit land as parties and amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The petitioner as plaintiff instituted the suit for partition impleading the opposite parties as defendants. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 to implead the transferees as parties and to incorporate the prayer that the subsequent sale deeds executed by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the transferees are not binding on him and to declare the same as null and void. The defendant filed an objection to the same. It is stated that in the written statement, they have specified about the execution of the sale deeds. The plaintiff has full knowledge of the same. The suit for declaration of the sale deeds as null and void is barred by limitation. The learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff is aware of the allegation made by the defendants. He has not taken any step at the earliest point of time. After lapse of statutory period of limitation, the plaintiff has sought for amendment. The proposed amendment will change the nature and character of the suit. Held so, learned trial court rejected the application.

(3.) The question does arise as to whether transferees are necessary parties or proper parties to the suit ?