1. - Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 25th May, 2010, whereby the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur allowed the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC impleading respondent no. 6 Ashok Kumar Agrawal to be party defendant no. 5, in the array of defendants.

2. The facts, necessary for the decision of instant writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent no.2 to 5 in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur, alleging that the respondent no.2 Municipal Board decided to auction four commercial plots ad measuring 10x15 feets and public notice was issued in this regard way-back on 13th September, 1994. The petitioner participated in the said auction by depositing money and being the highest bidder, auction of plot no. 2 was knocked down in his favour for a sum of Rs. 1,24,000/-. The petitioner deposited amount i.e. 31,000/- immediately under due receipt and auction was approved by the respondent no.3 Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Kotputli. Respondent no.2 Municipal Board recommended the auction in favour of the petitioner and sent the matter to the Government for its approval. Suddenly, after a lapse of 14 years, a notice was served by the respondent no.2 Municipal Board to the petitioner on 11th December, 2008, which suggested the cancellation of auction knocked down in favour of the petitioner.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent no.6 Ashok Kumar Agrawal purchased this plot in auction and deposited the amount with the respondent no. 2. Since the respondent no. 6 had purchased this plot in auction from the respondent no.2 Municipal Board, and his interest was involved in the plot in question, he filed the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC before the learned trial court imploring to be impleaded as a party defendant no.5 in the suit. The learned trial court allowed the said application, hence, this instant writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the relevant material available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the cause of action in the suit arose to the petitioner when he received the notice, wherein the information of cancellation of auction was scribbled. When the cause of action arose and the suit was filed in the court, respondent no. 6 was not in existence. He is said to have purchased the said plot in question during the pendency of the suit. Thus, if any cause of action accrues to the respondent no. 6 that is a separate cause of action and if the respondent no.6 feels, he can file a separate suit in the court. But, since the respondent no.6 has purchased the plot in question in the auction during the pendency of suit, he cannot be permitted to be impleaded as party defendant no.5 in the suit. He has cited judgments of Surendra Singh v. Vishvanath & Others, reported in 2009 (5)Western Law Cases (Raj) 692 ; Shri Raj Kumar alias Rajinder Singh v. Smt. Bimla Kumari and Another, reported in AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 303 ; Brij Mohan v. The Civil Judge (JD), Chirawa & Ors., reported in 2007 Wester Law Cases (Raj.) UC 657 ; Kalu Ram Ahuja & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., reported in (2008) 10 SCC 696 ; and Moti lal v. Municipal Council, Pali & Others, reported in 2009(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1394 , in support thereof.

6. E Converso, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 contended that the respondent no. 6 Ashok Kumar Agrawal is a necessary party in the case, as he has purchased the same plot in auction, which is the subject matter of the suit pending before the learned trial court. If the respondent no. 6 is not permitted to be impleaded as a party party in the suit, his rights shall suffer and it shall cause him a great prejudice depriving him from seeking justice. Hence, he is a