A subsequent transferee with a registered sale deed must be allowed to protect her interests in ongoing litigation, demonstrating both necessity and direct interest in the subject matter.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 and Mr. Bhaiya Biswajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Sahebganj in Original Suit No. 23 of 2018 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. for impleadment as party defendant in the said suit, has been rejected.

3. Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff/O.P. No.1 filed Original Suit No. 23 of 2018 against the defendant praying there a decree directing the defendant to perform the agreement and execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. He further submits that in the plaint it is stated that the defendant along with other legal heirs have property in Mouza Mirza Chowki Bazar being J.B. No. 27/2, plot no. 52 having area of 2 katha out of which the defendant got 8 dhoor and 6 dhurki share over which there is pucca constructed room which is the suit property. He then submits that further case of the plaintiff is that on 17.04.2014 the defendant executed a sale agreement for the said property in favour of the plaintiff after accepting the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- and it was agreed that defendant will also take permission to execute and register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and as such the petition for permission is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahebganj being Mutation Case No. 17 of 2014-15. He submits that plaintiff requested the defendant to take proper steps in the said mutation case but the defendant avoided to take proper steps and as such suit being Original Suit No. 23 of 2018 has been instituted in the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Sahebganj. He submits that the defendant appeared and file written statement mainly on the ground that the defendant has already sold his share to one Anita Devi. He further submits that the petitioner in the present petition is Anita Devi. He further submits that pleading was also made by the defendant that Anita Devi has filed Title Suit 25 of 2013 for execution and registration of the lands measuring 6 dhoor and 5 dhurki of J.B. Plot No. 52 part which was compromised before the National Lok Adalat and pursuant thereto sale deed has been executed and registered in favour of Anita Devi who is petitioner. He then submits that the petitioner has instituted two suits being Title Suit no. 24 of 2013 and Title Suit No. 25 of 2013 for specific performance of contract against the co-sharer of the defendant/respondent no.2 i.e Suresh Prasad Jaiswal. He submits that both the suits have been finally compromised before the National Lok Adalat and mutation was made in favour of the petitioner namely, Anita Devi. He further submits that in view of the written statement itself the right of the petitioner is accrued and in view of that petition for impleadment was filed and the learned court has been pleased to reject the same. He relied in the case ofMoreshwar Yadaorao Majahan Vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) through LRs. and others,(2022) 0 SCC (SC) 986. He refers to Para 18 and 19 of the said judgment which is quoted hereinbelow:-

“18. It could thus be seen that a "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the cou