The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order XXII Rule 10 C.P.C. to allow the impleadment of additional defendants who were pendente lite purchasers of portions of the suit schedule properties, enabling them to contest the suit and take up all defenses available in law.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This petition is directed against the impugned order dtd. 12/4/2022 passed on I.A.No.19 in O.S.No.26/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Laxmeshwar whereby the aforesaid application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking impleadment of proposed defendants No.9 and 10 to the suit was rejected by the trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.9 and perused the material on record.

3. While notice to respondents No.1 to 8 was deferred since no relief was sought for against them, respondent No.10 who is also sought to be impleaded as defendant No.10 has been served with notice of the petition and has chosen to remain unrepresented.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule immovable properties filed by the petitioners against defendants No.1 to 8/respondents No.1 to 8, petitioners moved the instant application seeking impleadment of respondents No.9 and 10 as additional defendants No.9 and 10 on the ground that they are pendente lite purchasers of portions of the suit schedule properties. Notice of the said application having been issued to the proposed defendants No.9 and 10, the same was opposed by them and the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the main ground that the application was filed after the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in R.A.No.60/2018 and R.A.No.16/2019 and consequently, the proposed defendants No.9 and 10 were neither proper nor necessary parties to the suit. Aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.19, the petitionersplaintiffs are before this Court by way of present petition.

5. Though several contentions have been urged by both the petitioners as well as respondents No.9 and 10 in support of their respective claims on the application and in the suit, in the light of the undisputed fact that the proposed defendants No.9 and 10 are pendente lite purchasers of portions of the suit schedule properties during the pendency of the suit, in the light of the provisions contained in the Order XXII Rule 10 C.P.C. and in view of the fact that respondents No.9 and 10 would be entitled to take up all defences available in law to contest the suit, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions in the present petition and in the suit, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order and allow I.A.No.19 and permit the petitioners to implead additional defendants No.9 and 10/ respondents No.9 and 10 as additional defendants No.9 and 10 to the suit by reserving liberty to contest the suit by filing written statement of objections etc. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order dtd. 12/4/2022 is set aside and I.A.No.19 is allowed. The petitioners are directed to carry out amendment and file amended cause title before the trial Court on the next date of hearing.

iii. Liberty is reserved in favour of the impleaded defendants No.9 and 10 to file written statement to the suit and contest the same.

iv. Liberty is also reserved in favour of all parties to adduce additional evidence/evidence in support of their respective claims.

v. All rival contentions between the parties kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.