LALIA DEVI Vs. NAKUL MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.9.2010 passed in T. S. No. 2/1997/T. S. No. 51/2006 (Annexure -6) whereby learned Court below has rejected the plaintiff's prayer to add one Savitri Devi as a defendant to the suit. The said Savitri Devi is a subsequent purchaser of the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said Savitri Devi has purchased a portion of the suit land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 4.10.04 during the pendency of the suit. Though the said subsequent purchaser will be governed by the decree of the suit, in order to avoid any further dispute and legal proceeding, the plaintiff -petitioner wanted to implead the said Savitri Devi as a defendant to the suit. Learned Court below has erroneously rejected the petitioner's said prayer on the ground that since Savitri Devi is a subsequent purchaser, she is not required to be added as a party to the suit, as the said sale deed is subject to the final decision of the suit.

(3.) IN view of the said agreement between the parties and also that the suit is not at the advanced stage, as informed to this Court, if the plaintiff wants to add the said subsequent purchaser Savitri Devi as a party to the suit, there is no impediment in allowing her said prayer. This writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.9.10 (Annexure -6) of learned Court below is quashed. As a consequence thereof, the petition for addition of the said Savitri Devi as a defendant to the suit is allowed.