ANUP SINGH Vs. CHANDER KANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned trial court dated 19.11.1997, whereby the application of the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. While impugning the said order the basic contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioners are necessary party to the proceedings and the presence of the petitioners would help the Court is finally and effectively determining the issues in controversy.

(2.) Before the Court can proceed with discussion on the merits of this contention, it would be appropriate to refer to the requisite facts.

(3.) Plaintiff Smi. Chander Kant Pruthi had filed a suit for specific performance with consequential relief of. permanent injunction on 1.10.1997 against Sant Lal Kitha and another. In this suit, the defendants were directed to be proceeded against ex pa rte vide order dated 8.10.1997 by the trial court. Having come to know the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging therein that they had purchased the suit land from the defendants, vide registered sale deed dated 10.10.1997. The petitioners being bona fide purchasers of the same property would be affected prejudically if any question is determined in the present suit. The application was contested by the plaintiffs on the ground that she was in possession of the suit property for the last 16 years arid the entire sale consideration has been paid earlier. It was further, averred that the sale deed in favour of the petitioners had been created with ulterior motive and to jeopardise the interest of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the order of status-quo passed in the present suit was duly informed to the defendants and the sale deed is mere sham transaction. It was further contended that the petitioners should not be impleaded as party to the proceedings against the wish of plaintiff who is dominus of litus of the suit.