JUDGMENT

Dr. A.K.RATH, J. - Challenging, inter alia, the order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in T.S. No.442 of 1994, the present application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the said order, learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the opposite party no.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment.

2. This case has a chequered history. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted T.S. No.442 of 1994 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack for specific performance of contract impleading opposite party no.2 as defendant. The suit was dismissed. Thereafter, she filed RFA No.58 of 2003 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Cuttack. Learned District Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and allowed the appeal. Thereafter, the defendant filed RSA No.183 of 2004 before this Court. On 16.5.2007, the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the balance consideration amount with cost of the stamp paper for execution of the registered sale deed in her favour. At this juncture, opposite party no.1 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him as a party. It is stated that he has purchased the land measuring an area of Ac.0.40 dec. out of sabik plot no.2709, khata no.209 corresponding to Hal Plot No.149, khata No.514, which corresponds to mutation khata no.527/333, plot No.149/1728 by means of registered sale deed dated 19.7.2006 from the defendant for a consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-. After purchase, he constructed a residential house over the same. It is further stated that as the defendant was in need of money, he entered into an agreement with him on 1.10.1990 for sale of the said land for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Defendant received an amount of Rs.10,000/- as advance and delivered the possession to him. In order to get more money at the instruction of the plaintiff and her husband, defendant subsequently executed another agreement on 22.12.1992 for sale of the land, which includes the land purchased by him. During pendency of the suit, defendant executed sale deed in his favour. Therefore, he has direct interest over the suit property and is a necessary party. The plaintiff filed an objection to the same contending that the intervenor is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. The intervenor claims to have purchased the property during pendency of the second appeal from the judgment-debtor. The appeal was dismissed on 16.5.2007. After dismissal of the appeal, the judgment-debtor filed two petitions under the Specific Relief Act in the trial Court as well as learned District Judge on the plea that the decree-holder has not complied with the terms of the decree for specific performance. The petitions had been rejected by the learned trial Court as well as learned District Judge. Thereafter, he filed two petitions before this Court, which had also been dismissed with an observation that the action of the judgment-debtor lacks bona fide and it is only to delay the matter of execution and registration of the sale deed. The alleged transfer is hit by the principle of lis pendens. Further, during pendency of the second appeal, the intervenor filed C.S. No.25 of 2007 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack against him for permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. He had also filed C.S No.416 of 2008 in the same Court for declaration of his right, title, interest and confirmation of possession. Learned trial Court allowed the application and impleaded the intervenor as a party to avoid multiplicity of litigation in future.

3. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the intervenor is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. Thus the learned trial Court has committed manifest illegality in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

4. Per contra