The main legal point established in the judgment is that the addition of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and effectively determine the controversy involved in the suit.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 16.9.1993 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Fazilka, whereby application of the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10, read with Order 6, Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed.

2. In brief, the facts are that the petitioner along with the two other plaintiffs, i.e. respondents No. 7 and 8, filed suit for demarcation of common boundary line between the land of the plaintiffs and that of defendants No. 1 to 6 (now respondents No. 1 to 6 in this civil revision). In the suit, the petitioner further made a prayer for decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from forcibly, illegally and without due course of law, encroaching upon the land of the plaintiffs by demolishing the existing boundary line and from causing any sort of obstruction into the construction work of the plaintiffs which was being carried out on the spot. Defendants No. 4 to 6 vide registered sale-deed dated 3.5.1993, sold part of the land, owned by them, to the persons mentioned in para-2 of the application. The petitioner along with other plaintiffs made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for impleading the vendees as defendants to the suit, and also for adding Para No. 8-A to the following effect:-

"8-A. That during the pendency of the suit, the defendants No. 4 to 6 have alienated some portion of the land owned of the plaintiffs to defendants No. 7 to 14 through Regd. sale-deed dated 3.5.1993, as such they are impleaded as defendants being necessary and proper parties."

This application on contest was dismissed by the trial Court primarily on the ground that Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be read as requiring that all persons who are likely to have any sort of right, title or interest in respect of the subject matter of a suit, should be made parties thereto. The order of the trial Court rejecting the application is being impugned by the petitioners in the present revision petition.

3 Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides for addition or deletion of parties to the suit, in order to prevent the multiplicity of proceedings and actions and for effectively determining the controversy involved in the suit. In this case, the vendees sought to be impleaded as defendants have purchased property during the pendency of the suit. The controversy between the parties relates to the demarcation of the lands of the parties to the suit. The subsequent vendees, having stepped into the shoes of the defendants who are already party to the suit, if made defendants to the suit, it would only help the trial Court to reach a just conclusion. It would also avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, I am of the view that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application.

4. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and order of the trial Court is set aside. As a consequence thereof, application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, shall stand allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs.