IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA nd ON THE 2 OF MAY, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 1993 of 2025 SIKHA GRAH NIRMAN SEHKARI SANSTHA NEAR ROXY PULL KAMPOO ROAD LASHKAR GWARIOR GHROUGH AUTHORIZED PERS Versus RAM SINGH DIED THROUGH LRS SMT KALA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D.S. Bhadouria and Mr. Saket Sharma - Advocates for petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Khedkar - Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rishabh Singh Chouhan - Advocate for respondents.

Mr. Sanjeev Jain and Mr. Nikhil Rai - Advocates for Caveator.

ORDER This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by 23rd District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 5A/2014 by which application filed by petitioner under Order

1 Rule 10 CPC has been rejected.

2. It is the case of petitioner that during the pendency of the civil suit, land has been alienated to M/s Aditya Developers which is a partnership firm. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that now under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the main question for consideration is as to whether which part of the land has been sold to M/s Aditya Developers Signature Not Verified and whether the interest of M/s Aditya Developers is contrary to the interest of petitioner or not ? It is submitted that out of big piece of land, agreement to sale was executed in respect of part of land. In the agreement to sale, boundaries of the land which was agreed to be sold to the petitioner was not mentioned. Now, a piece of land has also been sold by the vendor / defendant to M/s Aditya Developers. If a decree is passed, then M/s Aditya Developers would certainly take an objection in the execution proceedings with regard to the identity of the land which was agreed to be sold by defendant to the petitioner and the land which was sold to M/s Aditya Developers. In order to avoid all the controversies, petitioner wanted to implead M/s Aditya Developers as defendant No. 7, but by the impugned order, said application has been rejected.

3. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents. It is submitted that in view of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, subsequent purchaser would be bound by the decree which may be passed in the matter. Accordingly, submitted that Section 52 does not invalidate the transaction but it merely makes the pendente lite purchaser to suffer or entitled for the same legal rights and obligations of his vendor which may be eventually determined by the court.

4. Heard counsel for parties.

5. A copy of sale deed executed in favour of M/s Aditya Developers has not been placed on record, therefore, which land has been sold to M/s Aditya Developers is not known to this Court. However, it is fairly conceded by counsels for parties that in the agreement to sale, which was executed in Signature Not Verified favour of petitioner, boundaries of the land intended to be sold to the petitioner was not mentioned. Therefore, counsel for petitioner is right in submitting that at the stage of execution, dispute with regard to identity of land which was agreed to be sold to petitioner and the land which has been sold to M/s Aditya Developers would arise thereby creating complications.

6. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that trial Court should have allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

7. Furthermore, it is clear from the impugned order that for coming to a conclusion that proposed defendant is not necessary for adjudication of the suit, no reasons have been assigned. Merely by saying that proposed defendant is not necessary party, application was rejected.

8. Whenever any application is filed and the court comes to any conclusion, then it must disclose the reasons for the same so that the parties may come to know as to why the order has been passed. Even the higher court should also know that what reasons prompted the court