The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of preventing multiplicity of proceedings and ensuring the effective adjudication of all questions involved in a suit by allowing the impleadment of a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Archana Puri, J.

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 03.08.2019 passed by learned Court below, whereby, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The material facts, as culled out from the paperbook are that, initially, contesting respondents No.1 and 2, namely Deepak and Parmod, sons of Shyam Lal had filed a suit on 30.03.2017, against their parents for declaration to the effect that suit property is Hindu Joint, ancestral and coparcenery property of the plaintiffs as well as defendants and they have birth right in the said property and also that defendant No.1 (their father) had got passed wrong decree in favour of defendant No.2, with regard to the land measuring 67 Kanals 19 Marlas and also challenged the mutation, based on the same, to be illegal, null and void. Besides the same, respondents No.1 and 2 (who were plaintiffs before the Court below) had also challenged the sale deeds dated 12.05.1999 and 06.05.2008, got executed in favour of defendant No.3, 4 and 5, respectively, without any valid sale consideration.

3. During the pendency of the said suit, petitioner Manu Sharma, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, thereby, asserting that he had purchased 8 Kanals of land, out of the total land of 101 Kanal 6 Marlas, vide sale deed 16.05.2017 from Smt. Gindori, wife of Shyam Lal (who is defendant No.2 before the Court below). In the said application, it is asserted that the present suit has been filed in collusion with Smt. Gindori, who is mother of respondents No.1 and 2-plaintiffs. When the deal was struck, with regard to the land, so purchased by the petitioner, the plaintiffs were aware of it and they were also in the knowledge of the sale deed, having executed and registered. So, the petitioner is a necessary party.

4. However, in reply, the plaintiffs had objected to the application, while stating that no sale deed was ever executed by defendant No.2 i.e. Smt. Gindori, in favour of the petitioner and no consideration had passed on. It is submitted that vide order dated 16.05.2017, the Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo, regarding alienation over the suit property, in the presence of Smt. Gindori, who had made appearance in the Court on 01.04.2017. On that very day, the sale deed was executed and therefore, the petitioner is not a bonafide purchaser.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal of the application, the petitioner had filed the present revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the parties heard.

8. There are few dates, which are significant to note. The suit bearing CS No.321 RT of 2017 was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs (Deepak and Parmod) on 30.03.2017. Defendant No.2-Smt.Gindori made appearance in the said suit on 01.04.2017. The sale deed in favour of the petitioner, vis-a-vis, purchase of part land is dated 16.05.2017, which is executed, on the basis of agreement to sell dated 27.02.2017. The order of status quo was passed by the Court below on 16.05.2017.

9. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has vehemently submitted that the sale in favour of the petitioner is non est, in the eyes of law and would not convey any interest to the purchaser, as sale deed was executed, during the pendency of the suit, more particularly, when status quo qua alienation was ordered by the Court. It it submitted that a person, who purchases a property, during the pendency of the suit, is allowed to get impleaded in the suit, there will be no end to such impleadment, as the parties will indulge in further transfers of the suit property and the plaintiff as ‘dominuslitis’ cannot be made to fight against such persons, indefinitely and endlessly.

10. However, from the facts as spelt out and as observed aforesaid, it is evident that rights asserted by the petitioner flow to him, on the bas