(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 17.9.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jalandhar, who allowed the application of the respondent Bhupinder Kumar under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- "Bhupinder Kumar filed a suit for possession and for mandatory injunction against M/s K.R.S. Builders and others alleging that he is owner of the property in the head-note of the plaint and that the said property is in the illegal possession of the defendants, who have raised some construction, and, therefore, he may be delivered the possession of the property by giving direction to the defendants to remove the Malba lying on the land in dispute. The suit was contested by the defendants on the plea that they are owners of the property and they have purchased the same from its rightful owners. During the pendency of the suit, one application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that it has come to his notice that the defendants M/s K.R.S. Builders have further sold the property to various persons and on enquiries of the plaintiff there are few persons to whom the property was been sold and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the presence of these transferees before the Court is necessary, lest tomorrow complications may not arise for the plaintiff/respondent. This application was contested by the present petitioners on the ground that these transferees are not necessary parties, rather the plaintiff/respondent has not added the previous owners of the property. The application in question is a mala fide affair. The learned trial Court for the following reasons as given in para No. 5 of the impugned order allowed the application :-
(3.) I have heard Mr. Salil Sagar, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.