ORDER :

1. The petitioner after her failed attempt to get herself impleaded in Title (Partition) Suit No.4 of 1999 has approached this Court. She seeks to challenge the order dated 19.09.2015 by which her application under Order-I Rule 10(2) CPC has been rejected.

2. Title (Partition) Suit No.4 of 1999 was instituted by Smt. Mina Debi and 17 others for a preliminary decree for partition of schedule-B property to the extent of half share for the plaintiffs and for a declaration that the defendant nos.2 and 3 had no right to sell the dwelling house to the defendant nos.5 and 6 through sale-deed dated 21.12.1988 and the plaintiffs are entitled to purchase the said land from defendant nos.5 and 6. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the land comprised under plot nos. 129 and 137 which is shown as “chhapparbandi” in the Khatiyan was taken in oral settlement by Panchu Mian, father of Ishwar Lal and Nanku. They were in joint possession over the aforesaid lands. Over plot no. 129, six pucca rooms with one latrine and ‘Angan’ were constructed and over plot no.137, shop rooms, living room, kitchen, latrine, varanda etc. were constructed. The defendant no. 1 is grand-daughter and defendant nos. 2 to 4 are daughters of Ishwar Lal. The plaintiffs are descendants of Nanku. They have claimed that the wife of Ishwar Lal namely, Jagbasia Devi who had no right over the suit land, executed a registered deed of gift on 12.09.1978 in favour of her step daughters namely, Sabitri-defendant no.2 and Kamla-defendant no.3 in respect of the land comprised under plot no.238, and subsequently she cancelled the said gift-deed through a registered cancellation-deed dated 17.03.1980. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that through registered sale-deed dated 11.01.1972 Ishwar Lal sold 50 decimals land under plot no.129 to the tenants in occupation namely, Shankar Kumar Agarwal-defendant no.7 and Pawan Kumar Agrawala-defendant no.8 and defendant nos. 2 and 3 have also executed sale-deed dated 21.12.1988 through which 2 decimals land under plot no.238 with structures thereon have been transferred to Shabnam Parveen-defendant no.5 and minor Shadab Parveen-defendant no.6 for a valuable consideration of Rs.60,000/- (Rs. Sixty Thousand only). The right, title and interest of Ishwar Lal and defendant nos.2 and 3 have been challenged by the plaintiffs to execute the aforesaid sale-deeds. The defendant nos.5 and 6 have contested the suit by filing their separate written-statement. They have admitted execution of gift-deed and cancellation-deed dated 17.03.1980, however, they have insisted that subsequently, Jagbasia Devi sold that landed property to defendant nos. 2 and 3 vide registered sale-deed dated 07.10.1980 and they are purchasers from the defendant nos.2 and 3 for valid consideration. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.09.2003 and the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No.147 of 2003 against the aforesaid judgment in the partition suit. Finally, the appeal was allowed by judgment dated 25.03.2015 and the suit was remitted back to the court below for fresh hearing on two additional issues. The petitioner has pleaded that during pendency of the appeal she has purchased a part of the suit property from defendant nos. 5 and 6 through sale-deed dated 21.09.2012. After the remand, she has filed an application for her impleadment in the suit.

3. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that a ‘subsequent’ purchaser pendente lite like the petitioner is a necessary party in the partition suit. Mr. Birendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this contention has relied on decisions in “Chandrakant Raipat & Anr. vs. Santosh Kumar Ganguly & Ors.” reported in 2018 (1) JCR 486(Jhr) and “Dhanlakshmi & Ors. vs. P. Mohan & Ors.” reported in (2007) 10 SCC 719.

4. Resisting the writ petition, Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents, submits that alienees of alienees have no right to equities [refer “K. Adivi Naidu & O