PRANAKRUSHNA Vs. UMAKANTA PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HH This revision by the plaintiffs under S.115 of the Civil P.C. (for short, 'the Code'), which is directed against an order of the trial court allowing an application for intervention filed by opposite parties 2 to 4, apparently appears simple. But some issues of seminal importance are raised for our determination in view of order of the learned single Judge referring the matter to a Division Bench doubting the correctness of the decision of another learned Judge of this Court.

(2.) The facts briefly noted are as follows :- The petitioners instituted a suit for declaration of their title over certain landed property in which a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-opposite party No. 1 from alienating, the suit property was also made. On 20-4-1981, the court passed an order of interim injunction which was ultimately made absolute on 30-9-1981.

(3.) In due course, the hearing of the suit was taken up and was completed on 8-101985, 17-10-85 was fixed for delivery of judgment. At this stage, on 11-10-1985, the invervenets (opposite parties 2 to 4) made an application for their addition as parties to the suit under the provisions of O.1, R.10(2) of the Code on the ground that they had purchased the suit property from the defendant under four registered sale deeds between 28-1-1982 and 18-1-1984. The prayer was resisted by the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that the alienations having been made in violation of the order of injunction and also hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, the transactions were void in the eye of law. The further stand of the plaintiff-petitioners was that in any view of the matter, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interveners were neither necessary nor proper parties and that their presence was not necessary to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate the questions involved in the suit.