The court emphasized that a transfer pending litigation is not void but subservient to the ongoing suit, affirming judicial discretion to allow impleadment to protect bona fide purchasers' rights.

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. The instant revisional application is directed against an order of refusal to allow the prayer made by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure on April 24, 2024 passed by the Learned Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Krishnanagar Nadia in Title suit number 75 of 2017. The Opposite Parties here in being the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, demarcation and injunction being Title suit number 40 of 2017 before the Court of Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, First Court at Krishnanagar, Nadia, subsequently transferred before the Additional Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division and renumbered as Title Suit No.75 of 2017, which is pending before the Court for proper adjudication. The case made out by the plaintiffs in the plaint is that the suit property situated at RS Khatian number 7411, L. R khatian number 3452/2, 4827/6321/6948, R. S block number 529/9408, L.R number 743, under Mauja, number 60, Debagram , Police Station, Kali Ganj District, Nadia, measuring about 1.58 acres originally belonged to one Shankari Mohan Pandit, who sold 6.65 decimal of land in favour of one Nithya Nanda Roy vide two registered deed of sale dated October 24, 1991, measuring about five decimal and dated February 19, 2002 measuring about 1.65 decimal of land, specially demarcating the boundaries. A Strip of land on the eastern side of the said purchased portion of Nityanand Roy, measuring about 173.25 ft. remained in possession of Shankari, Mohan Pandit. The said Nithya Nanda Roy being the defendant in the suit tried to encircle said 173.25 square feet of land by making false claim and the plaintiff initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.PC but the local R.I without taking any measurement prepared a distorted report and taking advantage of the same said Nityananda may sale the land to the promoters. Hence the plaintiffs had to file the suit for declaration, demarcation and injunction, having no other option.

2. In the said suit, the written statement was filed by the defendant/Nityananda Roy denying all the allegations as levelled against him and stated that defendant number 1 was the recorded owner of 6.65 decimal of land and by virtue of a power of attorney as executed in favour of Ratan Kumar Singh and Shantanu Chatterjee, by the defendant number 1,a registered deed of sale was executed in favour of Govardhan Ghosh and Toton Ghosh that is the petitioners in this revisional application and they are the necessary parties. The present petitioners also mutated their names in the record of rights and enjoying the same came to know about the above referred title suit in respect of his suit property in the year 2023. They purchased the property from Nityananda Roy without being aware about pendency of any suit or proceeding to the property in dispute. Accordingly, the present petitioners filed one application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC in order to add the petitioners as defendant in the suit. After hearing both the parties the Learned Trial Court, rejected the prayer on the ground that the transfer was done during pendency of the suit and is hit by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The sale deeds as filed before the court shows that the transfer was made after the initiation of the instant suit and further that the plaintiff who is a dominus litis cannot be forced to add parties whom he does not want to add , unless it is a compulsion under the rule of law. It was held by the learned Court that the present petitioners are not the necessary parties to the instant suit.

3. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the present petitioners purchased the property on good faith by virtue of registered deed of conveyance from Nitya Nanda Roy measuring about 6.65 decimal of land which was specifically demarcated. Therefore, when the dispute pertains to the property of which the present petitioners are the owners, they are the neces