MOST SARASWATI SHAW Vs. UMESH PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners as also counsel for the opposite party no.2.

(2.) IN this revision petition the petitioners, who are defendants of Title Suit No.43 of 1992, have questioned the legality of an order dated 19.5.1995 passed by the Sub -ordinate Judge 1st, Munger in that title suit, whereby he has allowed a petition, in which one Sarjug Prasad Sah, who is opposite party no.2 in this revision petition has been allowed to be added as party, on the petition filed by him under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that opposite party no.2, who claims to be a purchaser of the suit property during the pendency of the suit, is neither necesary nor a proper party as has been held by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of Pranakrushana and other v. Umakant Pandey and others reported in AIR 1989 Orissa 148, wherein it was observed (vide paragraph -8) as follows : "8. ....In my considered opinion, in a suit of this nature a transfer from the defendant pendente lite is neither a necessary nor a proper party in as much as he would be bound by the decree in the suit in view of the principle contained in S. 52 of the T. P. Act. ...."