The court affirmed that Subsequent Purchasers can be impleaded in a suit to protect their interests while reinforcing that substitution of parties requires plaintiffs' discretion.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)

I.A. 9939/2021 (under Section 151 of CPC for delay in filing the reply to the application filed by the Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC)

1. For the grounds and reasons stated therein, the delay in filing the reply is condoned.

2. The application is disposed of.

I.A. 7770/2021 (under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment of the plaint)

3. Mr. S.S. Jauhar, counsel for the Applicant/Plaintiffs states that he has instructions not to press this application.

4. The application is dismissed as not pressed.

I.A. 7771/2021 (under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC for adding the new purchasers of the suit property as party Defendants), & I.A. 7769/2021 (under Order 22 Rule 10 r/w/ Section 151 of CPC for substitution of Defendants No. 1 and 2 and impleadment of Applicants in place of the Defendants No. 1 and 2)

5. The present suit has been filed for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction against Defendants No. 1 and 2 in respect of property bearing No. 268, measuring 360 sq. yds. out of Khasra No. 138, situated in the revenue estate of Village Okhla, abadi known as Jamia Nagar, New Delhi [hereinafter known as `Suit Property'].

6. Briefly put, the case of the Plaintiffs is that Sale Deed dated 4th November, 1999, purportedly executed by their late father in favour of Defendants No. 1 and 2, is null and invalid. Issues have been framed on 14th July, 2016, and the trial is currently underway.

7. Now, during the course of the trial, Defendants No. 1 and 2 have sold the Suit Property by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 26th March, 2021 in favour of the Applicants in I.A. No. 7769/2021, namely - Mr. Ayaz Mobin, Mr. Kashif Nazim and Sheikh Mohd. Akram [hereinafter jointly referred to as the `Applicants' or `Subsequent Purchasers']. In these circumstances, the present applications have been filed.

A. What are the reliefs prayed for?

8. In I.A. 7771/2021, the Plaintiffs seek impleadment of Subsequent Purchasers under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. On the other hand, in I.A. 7769/2021, Subsequent Purchasers have invoked Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC to seek leave to contest the above suit and substitute themselves in place of Defendants No. 1 and 2.

9. Upon a perusal of the two applications, two distinct, though overlapping reliefs, are discerned: [i] Both the Plaintiffs as well as the Subsequent Purchasers, seek impleadment of Subsequent Purchasers as Defendants in the suit. To that extent, there is consensus between them; but [ii] the Subsequent Purchasers want to go a step further and seek to be substituted in place of the Defendants No. 1 and 2, implying thereby, that Defendants No. 1 and 2 be deleted from the array of parties and be supplanted instead by the Applicants in their shoes. Let us deal with each of these issues separately.

B. On impleadment of the Subsequent Purchasers

10. Mr. S.S. Jauhar, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors P. Ltd. and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1518 of 2013, MANU/SC/0192/2013 to argue that the Subsequent Purchasers can be impleaded as parties to the suit.

11. Mr. Harish Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants, on the other hand, submits that vide registered Sale Deed dated 26th March, 2021, Defendants No. 1 and 2 have sold, alienated, transferred and delivered the actual and physical possession of the Suit Property to Subsequent Purchasers, for valuable consideration. Thus, they are bona fide purchasers, and have become lawful owners in possession of Suit Proper