JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.

Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 23.3.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhadrak in Original Suit No.36/1970-I vide Annexure-1, the instant application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleadment of party.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details the short facts of the case are that Rabinarayan Samal, the father of opposite party nos.1 and 2, laid Original Suit No.36/1970-I in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhadrak for partition. The preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 6.9.1975 declaring the shares of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Since the parties could not partition the property amicably, final decree proceeding was initiated. In the said proceeding, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. to implead him as a party. It is stated that on 29.12.1975, Rabinarayan Samal, plaintiff, executed a registered sale deed of an area of Ac.0.08 dec. out of Ac.0.10 dec. appertaining to Khata No.372, Plot No.3592 of mouza-Barala Pokhari, District-Bhadrak in his favour and delivered possession. After his death, he is in possession of the same and residing in the house constructed over it. By order dated 23.3.2001, learned trial court rejected the petition holding, inter alia, that it is open to the petitioner to agitate the claim in a separate suit.

3. Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 in spite of valid service of notice.

4. The seminal question that hinges for consideration before this Court is as to whether a person who was not a party to the suit, purchased certain property after the preliminary decree was passed in a suit for partition, can be impleaded as a party in the final decree proceeding ?

5. Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. postulates that:-“xxx xxx xxx (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.”

6. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 provides that the Court may either upon or without an application of either party, add any party 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. The object of the rule is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject-matter so that the dispute can be determined in their presence to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

7. In Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, AIR 1958 SC 886, the apex Court held that it is firmly established as a result of judicial decisions that in order that a person may be added as a party to a suit, he should have a direct interest in the subject-matter of the litigation whether it raises questions relating to moveable or immoveable property.

8. In Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and others v. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and others, (2012) 8 SCC 384, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to consider all the earlier judgments. The fact of the case was that a suit for specific performance of agreement was filed. The appellants and Bhagwati Developers though total strangers to the agreement, came into picture only when all the respondents entered into a clandestine transaction with the appellants for sale of the property and execu