Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents 1st set on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of this petition at this stage itself.

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by learned Sub Judge-VI, Ara in Title Suit No. 12 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the prayer made by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for addition of further name of defendants, who have purchased the land sold by the defendants during the pendency of the title suit, has been rejected.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is plaintiff before the learned trial court and has filed the suit for partition against the defendants/respondents claiming share in the property of the family. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed a petition for restraining the defendants from making any sale in favour of third party and the application was disposed of vide order dated 30.03.2010 by the learned trial court on the basis of undertaking of the defendants 1st set that they would not alienate any property during pendency of the suit. However, despite order dated 30.03.2010 and undertaking given by the defendants 1st set, who are respondents 1st set in the present petition, the defendants 1st set executed a number of sale deeds in favour of the third parties during 2012-14. The plaintiff filed a petition on 13.09.2022 before the learned trial court for impleadment of the vendees of the defendants 1st set as party defendants in the suit. A rejoinder has been filed on 28.11.2022 by the defendants. However, the learned trial court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiff which is under challenge in the instant petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said order is against the settled principles of law and is not sustainable. The learned trial court has dismissed the petition merely on the ground that the matter was at the stage of final arguments and if the purchasers were made party, the same would result in prolonging the matter and the defendants would be seriously prejudiced, but the same could not be made a ground for dismissal of the petition filed by the plaintiff for impleadment of the purchasers. The learned counsel further submits that if the purchasers are not made parties, since a large number of persons have been sold the suit property, unnecessary complexity would arise in the matter and will give rise to further litigation and to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation and to safeguard the interest of all the parties, it was necessary to implead the purchasers as party defendants.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1st set vehemently contends that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same does not need any interference. The learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff/petitioner has filed the petition for impleadment after much delay as all the transactions had taken place from the year 2012 to 2014 as submitted by the plaintiff and application has been filed for impleadment only in the year 2022. The plaintiff was knowing the facts all along, but only to linger the disposal of the title suit, the plaintiff filed the petition after such inordinate delay. The learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court has taken note of the fact that all such transfer of the property would be hit by doctrine of lis pendens and the rights of all such persons would be guided by what is decided regarding the rights of their vendor. Moreover, such purchasers would not get any right if the sale has been made without permission of the court during the pendency of the suit.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties. Order 1, Rule 10(2)