The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of impleading necessary parties to enable the court to effectively adjudicate and settle all questions involved in the suit, as well as the application of the doctrine of lis pendens in preventing the alienation of property during the pendency of a suit.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 13.12.1988 executed between the plaintiff and respondents No.2 to 6 pertaining to 14 bigha and 5 biswa of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakoli. In said suit an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued in favour of the petitioner and against respondents No.2 to 6 restraining them from transferring, encumbering or parting with possession of the suit land till the next date. The said interim order was extended from time to time and continues to enure in favour of the petitioner. Notwithstanding the order prohibiting respondents No.2 to 6 from selling the land in question they sold the land to respondent No.1, Amar Nath, by a registered sale deed on 30.6.1997. According to Amar Nath when he applied to the Consolidation Authority for mutating the land in his name on 27.8.2003 he was informed of the Court injunction and a refusal by the revenue authorities to mutate the suit land in his name. Accordingly, he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a defendant in the suit. The said application was allowed vide order dated 16.10.2003, principally on the ground that a purchaser under the defendants would be a necessary party for the reason if plaintiff ultimately succeeds the purchaser under the defendants would be required to join in executing a conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff and hence his presence before the Court would be necessary.

2. The order impleading respondent No.1 as a defendant in the suit has been challenged by the plaintiff by way of the instant petition.

3. The issue which arises for consideration has to be answered in light of the provisions of sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It reads as under:-“(2) Court may strike out or add parties.-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.”

4. A bare perusal of the legislative provision reveals that the sweep thereof is controlled by the expression settle all the questions involved in the suit be added. It is thus apparent that the focus has not to be whether the applicant is a person who ought to have been joined as a necessary or a proper party to the suit, the focus has to be whether the presence of the applicant is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit.

5. One extreme end of the submission could be that since the plaintiff is a dominus litus and cannot be compelled to litigate against a person qua whom no relief is prayed for, the expression all the questions involved in the suit would mean only the questions or disputes between the parties to the litigation and do not include a question or dispute between one or more of the parties and a third party. The other extreme end could be to urge that the expression would include the presence of such parties who may be affected keeping in view the defence raised in the suit as also the actions of the defendant.

6. In the decision of this Court dated 22nd March 2007 in CRP No.749/2002 R.K.K.R. Steel Ltd. vs. Northern Steel and General Mills and Anr. with reference to reported decisions it was held as under:-“34. Independent of the afore-noted decisions cited by learned counsel, a perusal of the commentaries under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reveal a plethora of decisions which have considered the ambit of the power of the Court in