JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

1. This revision petition has been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Moga in Civil Suit No.1836 of 2022, titled Sukhwinder Kaur and Ors. Vs. Gurmit Singh and Ors., vide which application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by respondent-Gurpinder Kaur for impleading her as defendant has been allowed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the material placed on the file.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.5 namely Gurpinder Kaur has purchased the suit property from defendant No.1 during pendency of the suit. The suit in question has been instituted by theplaintiffs-petitioners seeking declaration to the effect that plaintiffs and proforma defendants are owners in joint possession of the suit property in equal shares, as the same is ancestral, coparcenary, joint Hindu Family property in their hands. Learned counsel further contended that since the transfer of the suit property by defendant No.1 in favour of Gurpinder Kaur has been made during the pendency of the suit and without permission of the Court, the same will be hit by doctrine of lis pendens and such a transferee is not entitled to be impleaded as a party to the suit as of right but learned trial Court has wrongly allowed the application and he prayed that the impugned order be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Law Finder Doc Id # 65253 ‘Bibi Zubaida Khatoon versus Nabi Hassan Saheb and Anr.’, and ‘Amitchand Aggarwal versus Nabi Hasan’.

4. However, I do not find any force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and the case law cited by him is not at all applicable to the facts of the case in hand.

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2025(3) RCR (Civil) 176, Sulthan Said Ibrahim versus Prakasan & Ors. has explained the scope of Order 1 Rule 10(2) as under:

"45. The power to strike out or add parties under Sub-rule (2) can be exercised by the court on an application made by the parties before it, or upon an application by a third party who desires to be added as a party, or even suo motu. Explaining the object underlying Order I Rule 10, this Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524 observed thus:

'6. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

6. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, thus empowers courts to add, substitute, or strike out parties to a suit at any stage to ensure necessary parties are present for complete adjudication. Under sub-rule (1), if a suit is filed by the wrong person as plaintiff or if there is uncertainty regarding the correct plaintiff, the Court may substitute or add the right person, provided the mistake was made in good faith and the change is essential to determining the real matter in dispute. At any stage of the legal process, under sub-rule (2), the Court has the power, either on its own or through an application, to remove the name of any party who was improperly included or to add any person who should have been joined or whose presence is necessary for a