IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 18 OF DECEMBER, 2025

MISC. PETITION No. 7063 of 2025

SHAUKEEN AND OTHERS

Versus

BHURE SINGH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan - learned Counsel for petitioners. Shri Nirmal Sharma- learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.9-

State.

ORDER full knowledge of ongoing proceedings, Kusum alias Guddi, legal heir of Defendant No.1, executed a sale deed on 16.04.2024 in favour of Mathura Prasad (subsequent purchaser), who subsequently got his name mutated in revenue records. It was contended that the subsequent purchaser is attempting to forcibly take possession of disputed land and dispossess them from their lawful ownership and possession. Furthermore, the purchaser is allegedly trying to sell the land to other influential persons. Therefore, petitioners filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, seeking impleadment of Mathura Prasad as necessary party to suit. Trial Court dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 06.11.2025. Hence, this petition.

This Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India by petitioners (plaintiffs) against order dated 06.11.2025 passed by Fifth Civil Judge, Bhind (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") in RCSA No.168 of 2021, whereby petitioners' application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for impleading subsequent purchaser, Mathura Prasad, as party to suit,

has been rejected.

2. In brief, the necessary facts for adjudication of this petition, as

narrated therein, are that petitioners have filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to land situated at Khasra Nos.798, 803, 828, and 829, totaling 6 Bigha 3 Biswa, located in Mouza Sarah, Tehsil and District Bhind. During pendency of said suit, and despite

4. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that dismissal of application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC is legally unsustainable. Mathura Prasad, being subsequent purchaser of suit land, is necessary party for effective adjudication of dispute. Despite knowing about pending litigation, subsequent purchaser has interfered with petitioners' possession and is attempting to sell land to third parties, thereby creating new disputes over possession. It is further contended that Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act restricts transfer of property during pendency of suit, it does not prevent the Court from adding subsequent purchaser as party when such purchaser’s actions directly affect petitioners' rights and possession. The well-settled principle of law dictates that when presence of party is necessary to avoid conflicting decisions, protect rights of plaintiff, or prevent multiplicity of suits, the Court should liberally exercise discretion under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It is further argued that Trial Court, by relying on judgment in Vidhur Impex v. Tosh Apartments (2012) 8 SCC 384, failed to appreciate the distinction in facts between that case and present case, as the purchaser in that case did not interfere with possession. In the present case, Mathura Prasad is actively disturbing petitioners’ possession and attempting to alienate suit property. Unless Mathura Prasad is impleaded as party, the Court will not be able to effectively adjudicate dispute, and conflicting decisions will arise, leading to unnecessary litigation. Therefore, refusal to implead purchaser causes grave injustice and is legally untenable. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for State submits that dismissal of petitioners’ application is correct in law. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act renders sale deed executed during pendency of suit subject to final outcome of litigation. Therefore, subsequent purchaser’s actions are of no consequence as the transfer is subject to suit’s outcome. the Proposed purchaser has not made independent claim over the property a