Subsequent purchaser bound by the decisions of the suit.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order o the learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, dated 1.2.2000, in an unnumbered application in O.S.No.160 of 1996.

2. The petitioner herein initially filed a suit for partition at Sub-Court, Cuddalore on 17.2.1994. Thereafter, the same was transferred to District Munsif Court, Cuddalore and numbered as O.S.No.160 of 1996 and a preliminary decree was passed on 6.8.1998. It is is the case of the petitioner that in the meanwhile the respondents have sold certain suit properties to various third parties. He has also filed an application for passing a final decree. Accordingly, he has filed the present application under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C for impleading respondents 4 to 6 to bring as Defendants 4 to 6 in the suit. The learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, after holding that after passing of the preliminary decree on 6.8.1998 and at the stage of passing of final decree the petitioner has filed the present application for impleadment of certain parties who are said to have purchased certain items of suit properties, they are neither necessary nor proper parties, dismissed the said application, hence, the present revision.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

4. Though it is stated that the proposed parties have purchased the properties after the preliminary decree, learned counsel for the alieness, respondents 4 to 6 herein, has. filed a typed set stating that the suit properties have been sold, mortgaged and encumbered even prior to the passing of the preliminary decree. He also contended that the petitioner herein himself has sold certain items of the suit properties. In such circumstance, according to him, the allinees are willing to take their risk and they are neither necessary nor proper parties for the adjudication of the claim made by the petitioner, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is useful to refer the relevant provision, namely, Order 1, Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code, which reads thus :

"(2) Court may strike out or add. parties The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."

I have already stated that the Court below has passed a preliminary decree for partition even as early as on 6.8.1998 and an application for final decree in I.A. No.287 of 1999 is pending before it. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 4 to 6 have purchased certain items of suit properties. It is also brought to my notice that the petitioner himself has sold certain properties even prior to the preliminary decree. In such circumstance, the question to be considered is whether all those persons are to be impleaded in the suit as well as in the present application for passing of final decree.

6. With regard to the scope of Order 1, Rule 10( 2) of C.P.C., it is relevant to refer the decision of the Apex Court reported in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, 1992 (II) MLJ 55. In the case before the Supreme Court, there was a dispute between the allottee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others. In the said dispute, one lessee under allottee has filed an application to implead him as one of the defendants under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C. After considering the claim of. all the parties as well as relevant provision, namely, Order 1, Rule 10(2) of C.P.C.,