NARESH KUMAR Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's prayer for impleadment as necessary parties to the proceedings was declined by trial Court vide impugned order dated 26.3.1999. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Kaushalya Devi had filed a suit for joint possession against Giani Ram, defendant. The suit was contested by the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, certain issues were framed. During the pendency of the suit, Giani Ram, defendant, had sold the land comprised in Khewat No. 225 Khatouni Nos. 539, 540 and 541 as per Jamabandi for the year 1989-90, vide registered sale deed dated 16.5.1997 in favour of the present petitioners. The petitioners have purchased this land out of land measuring 155 kanals 9 marlas for a consideration of Rs. 3,60,000/-.

(3.) I have gone through the facts of this case. To my mind, the case set up by the respondents is totally contrary to the law laid down in the latest authority of the Apex Court reported as Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others, 1999(2) Supreme Court Cases 577. A bona fide purchaser is a necessary party and he can be impleaded as a party to the suit. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of the multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code.