Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Amit Verma, learned counsel for petitioner; Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, for respondents; and, perused the record.

2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under.

3. One Zahira, respondent No. 1, instituted Original Suit No. 306 of 1994 impleading Tasadduq and Zakir Husain as defendants in the Court of Munsif Hawali, Saharanpur for cancellation of registered sale-deed dated 13.5.1994, which was executed by defendants in their favour representing plaintiff-respondent No. 1 as major though on the date of execution of sale-deed she was minor. The suit was contested by defendants, i.e., respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by filing their written statement. Trial Court, i.e., Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Saharanpur decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2009 to the extent of declaring sale-deed dated 13.5.1994 a nullity. Trial Court, however, declined to grant relief of permanent injunction holding that plaintiff has failed to prove her possession over property in dispute, and, on the contrary, property in dispute is in possession of defendants, therefore, injunction as sought, cannot be granted.

4. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 28.1.2009 insofar as it declared sale-deed dated 13.5.1994 a nullity, preferred Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2009 before District Judge, Saharanpur. During pendency of appeal, Zahira, plaintiff-respondent No. 1, executed sale-deed dated 25.11.2011 in favour of Smt. Sanjida, wife of Waheed, i.e., respondent No. 2. In its turn, Smt. Sanjida, wife of Waheed respondent No. 2, executed another sale-deed dated 27.1.2012 in favour of petitioner. It is also alleged that vendee Smt. Sanjida put petitioner in physical possession over suit property.

5. In the meantime, defendants No. 3 and 4, who were appellants in Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2009 filed an application dated 21.2.2012 stating that there is a compromise between defendants-appellants and plaintiff-respondent, therefore, appeal be decided in terms of compromise. Therein plaintiff-respondent admitted that she was major on the date of registration of sale-deed dated 13.5.1994 and, therefore, sale-deed is valid.

6. On the contrary, petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. dated 21.2.2012 stating that he has purchased land from Smt. Sanjida and is in possession of property in dispute. Therefore, he is necessary party and should be impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the pending Appeal No. 6 of 2009.

7. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1, Smt. Zahira, had also challenged judgment and decree dated 28.1.2009 passed by Trial Court in Original Suit No. 306 of 1994 to the extent it declined relief of permanent injunction by recording a finding against her and in favour of defendants-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that they were in possession of property in dispute. The said Civil Appeal was registered as Appeal No. 9 of 2009 (Zahira v. Tasadduq and others). Therein she moved an application for dismissing appeal as not pressed and Lower Appellate Court vide order dated 21.2.2012 dismissed the said appeal of plaintiff-respondent No. 1.

8. Giving details of aforesaid facts and also the factum that Waheed, i.e., husband of Smt. Sanjida, himself was doing pairavi of the case on behalf of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and when plaintiff-respondent No. 1 proceeded to compromise the matter, he (petitioner) committed fraud with Smt. Zahira also and got a fraudulent sale-deed dated 25.11.2011 executed in favour of his wife Smt. Sanjida and, got re-transferred property to himself vide sale-deed dated 27.1.2012 though Smt. Zahira has no information of all these transactions and contention of petitioner that he is in possession of property in dispute is patently false, therefore he is neither necessary nor proper party to be impleaded. The application was opposed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1.

9. Lower Appellate Court has rejected above application of petitioner by rec