The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to add necessary or proper parties under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC to enable effective adjudication of all matters in dispute in the suit.

Darshan Singh, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 16.09.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kapurthala, vide which the application filed by respondents no.5 to 7 under Order 1, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC), for impleading them as defendants, has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was dominus litis. So, he cannot be compelled to fight against respondents no.5 to 7 against whom he does not wish to fight. The petitioner has also not claimed any relief against them. So, they should not have been impleaded as party to the suit by the learned trial Court. He contended that the subsequent purchaser during the pendency of the suit is not entitled to be impleaded as party to the suit. He contended that respondents no. 5 to 7 have claimed themselves to be purchaser of the property. There is no dispute with regard to the title or ownership of the property. Thus, their participation in the suit was not necessary. They have to prove their title independently on the basis of the documents in their possession. He further contended that the sale deed in favour of respondents no. 5 to 7 is a result of fraud and criminal proceedings have already been initiated against them for procuring the false and fabricated sale deed. The petitioner is claiming the permanent injunction only against respondents no. 1 to 4 due to their illegal interference in the suit property. Thus, he contended that respondents no. 5 to 7 were not the necessary or proper party to the suit. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order suffers from material illegality and is liable to be set aside. To prove this contentions, he relied upon cases Mustak Ahmed v. Shamlat Patti Sikhan 1992 PLJ 665, Major P.T. Choudary v. Mohammed Abdul Basheer Khan and others 2007(5) R.C.R (Civil) 144, Amar Singh v. Gram Panchayat, Sabun, 1992 PLJ 69, Ranbir Singh and another v. Ran Singh and others 2006(2) R.C.R (Civil) 278, Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh & Ors. 1996(5) SCC 539, Antony Devaraj v. Aralvaimozhi (Kurusadi) Devasahayam 2004(3) R.C.R (Civil) 68 and Piara Singh & another v. Sri Guru Arjan Dev College, Tarn Taran 2003(4) R.C.R (Civil) 532.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 to 7 contended that respondents have purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit. They are the bonafide purchasers of the suit property. Respondents no. 1 to 4 are not contesting the suit and have been proceeded against ex-parte. He contended that if the decree is passed, the rights of the respondents no. 5 to 7 are certainly to be affected. The applicants have become owner in possession of the suit property and have got direct interest in the suit land. So, they have been rightly impleaded as party to the suit by the learned trial Court. To support his contentions, he relied upon case Gopal Singh v. Raghbir Singh and another 2010(4) R.C.R (Civil) 723.

4. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.

5. Annexure P-2 is the application filed by respondents no.5 to 7 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as defendant to the suit. In the application, it has been specifically pleaded that defendants no. 1 to 4 without disclosing about the pendency of the litigation have sold the suit land in their favour vide registered sale deed dated 25.04.2012 for valuable consideration and put them in actual possession thereof. After the sale deed, the interest of defendants no. 1 to 4 in the suit came to an end, they did not appear before the Court. It is further pleaded that as they have become the owners in possession of the suit property, so, they had got direct interest in the suit property.

6. This fact is not disputed that original defendants i.e. respondents no. 1 to 4 are no more contesting the suit, which is evident from the copy of the impugned order, wherein they have been recorded as ex-parte. Respondents no.5 to 7 are the