The impleadment of a party as a necessary party is essential for effective and complete adjudication of a dispute, particularly when the party has a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit and their presence is necessary to grant an effective decree.

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"(1) the impugned order dated 02.06.2017 (Anx.7) passed by the learned ADJ, Nagaur, in allowing application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC filed by the respondent-Municipal Board, Nagaur may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(2) The application filed by the respondent No.4 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (Anx.5) be dismissed in toto;

(3) Any other writ, order or direction, which your Lordship may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners."

2. The petitioners filed a suit under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC for execution of the sale deed in pursuance of the contract dated 08.08.2005 for sale of the agricultural land comprising khasra No.127 measuring 3 bighas 10 biswas, khasra No.128 measuring 10 biswas and khasra No.130 measuring 6 bighas situated in Nagaur. The suit was for perpetual injunction too.

3. The respondent No.1 is said to have been in possession of the aforementioned agricultural land, and thus, entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the said land on 08.08.2005 for a sum of Rs. 3,41,000/-. The petitioners thereafter, took possession of the land and are said to have been in continuous possession thereof.

4. It is pertinent to note here that another suit for correction of the revenue entries was filed before the revenue court, which was dismissed and the appeal against the same is pending.

5. The issues were framed and the proceedings were continuing when the respondent No.4-Municipal Board, Nagaur filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC praying for its impleadment as party defendant in suit No.68/2011 filed by the petitioners, on the ground that the disputed land is situated in the notified limits of the Municipal Board, Nagaur, and therefore, the same vests in the Municipal Board, Nagaur, as per Section 68 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. The said application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed by the learned court below vide order dated 02.06.2017.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a categorical submission that the suit itself was for execution of the sale deed and perpetual injunction, and therefore, no third party, who was a signatory to the sale deed, can claim to be a necessary party to the suit.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court towards the reply filed by the State, in which it has been stipulated that the land is being claimed by the State of Rajasthan. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, states that the State is already a party, and if it has a claim over the said property, it shall be open for the State to put its stand before the learned court below.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that earlier an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was decided in favour of the petitioners, and respondent No.4 tried to enter the fray at a very belated stage, and that too, when there was no reason why it need to enter, as the dispute was basically pertaining to the execution of the sale deed, to which the Municipal Board, Nagaur was a party.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that respondent No.4 is a necessary party to the suit, and thus, any inclusion of respondent No.4 would be detrimental to the case of the petitioners to get an effective and early relief.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited & Ors. v. Tosh Apartments Private Limited & Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 384, relevant portion of which reads as under:-

"43. We are in complete agreement with the Delhi High Court that the application for impleadment filed by the Appellants was highly belated. Although, the Appellants have pleaded that at the time of execution of the agreements for sale by Respond