SANU Vs. ANITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On repeated call, nobody has responded on behalf of the Opposite parties and identical was the situation on 23/1/2025. On that date, with a view to provide one more opportunity to the Opposite party nos.1 to 5, the matter was adjourned and further it was adjourned on 20/2/2025 with a view to provide further opportunity and in spite of that, no response has been made on behalf of the Opposite parties, and as such, this petition is being heard in absence of the Opposite parties.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 10/2/2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) IX, Deoghar in M.C.A. No.255 of 2022 in Original Suit No.46 of 2019 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC to implead necessary parties has been rejected by the learned court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was necessitated that by way of said petition the subsequent purchasers of the land, which was the subject matter of the suit, have been tried to be impleaded which has been rejected by the learned court. He submits that subsequently it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that even prior to institution of the suit, some of the land has been sold to another person. He submits that the purchaser of the land were necessary party and it is well settled. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently decided this aspect of the matter in the case of Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind and Ors. [Civil Appeal No(s) 7305 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.(s) 10005 of 2022)] reported in 2024 INSC 510 and he relied on paragraph nos.16, 19, 20 and 21 of the said judgment, which are quoted below: