ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Saibal Mitra, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Soumitra Baroi, counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent.

3. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 20.5.2016 passed by Sri S.A. Prasad, Civil Judge (Jnr. Division), Ghatshila in Title Suit No. 23 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has rejected the petition dated 18.3.2016 under Section 153 read with Order 1 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the petitioner 2010. Vide petition dated 14.05.2016 the provision of law was prayed to be read as u/s 153 read with Order 1 Rule 3 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition was filed to incorporate the name of purchaser of the suit land namely Smt. Chintamani Tudu as defendant in the suit along with the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum as proforma defendant in the suit.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed a Title Suit No. 23 of 2005 for specific performance of contract and for cancellation of Sale Deed No. 1147 dated 07.05.2005 against the defendants. He submits that during the pendency of the title suit, on 13.01.2010 and 03.02.2010, the petitioner had filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for restraining the defendants from selling and executing sale deed in connection with the suit land. Vide order dated 23.08.2010, the petition for injunction was rejected and the suit property was sold.

5. He further submits that the purchaser of the suit property is a necessary party for just and proper adjudication of the suit. She belongs to a schedule tribe community and accordingly, a petition was filed for making her as defendant no. 3 and making Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum as defendant no. 4 in the suit. He submits that the sale deed in favour of the purchaser was executed on 18.01.2010 during the pendency of the injunction petition in the suit.

6. He submits that provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the procedure in case of assignment before final order in the suit. There is a clear provision that in cases of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by the leave of the court, be continued by or against the person or person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. He submits that the petition was filed for impleading the subsequent purchaser, who had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit and accordingly in view of the Order 22 Rule 10, the subsequent purchaser was required to be made party to the proceedings.

7. He has referred to a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Thomson Press (India) Limited vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 397 to submit that the learned court below ought to have allowed his petition.

8. He submits that the learned court below has rejected his petition on account of delay in filing the petition by stating that the property was sold in favour of the proposed defendant as back as in the year 2010, but no steps were taken by the plaintiff and the petition was filed after completion of defendants’ arguments and filing of written argument by the defendant no. 2. He submits that the learned court below has not considered the aforesaid law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner, who was plaintiff in the suit.

9. Counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent submits that on the one hand, the petitioner has not filed a copy of the plaint along with this writ petition and on the other hand, it is apparent from the impugned order itself that there are two defendants in the suit. In the instant case, the petitioner has made only one of the defendants as respondent and accordingly, in absence of another defendant, no order can be passed in this particular writ petition. He