1/3 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5195/2009 (Man Mohan vs. Govind Das & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 10/7/2009 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Sajjan Singh, for the petitioner. This petition is directed against the order dated 11/12/2008, whereby, the learned trial court has allowed the application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and impleaded the purchaser of the property during the pendency of the suit as party defendant. Leaned counsel for the plaintiff submits that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Mst.Koyalee vs. State of Rajasthan – AIR 2009 Rajasthan 28 transfer in question was against the injunction granted by the trial court and this Court in S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal no. 615/96 (Govind Das vs. Manmohan) on 11/12/2004, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and impleadment of purchaser, who according to the plaintiff is not a bonafide purchaser deserves to be set aside in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2/3 Having heard learned counsel and upon perusal of the impugned order and judgments cited at the bar, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order at this stage is un-exceptional. The judgment in the case of Mst. Koyalee, this Court has clearly noticed in para no.21 of the judgment that the land originally stood in the name of Khatedar- petitioner's Husband and after his death his brother 'G' knowing it well that his brother's wife was alive and being sole legal heir, without impleading her, filed a suit seeking declaration of Khatedari rights and thereafter she has been litigating being sole legal heir of the recorded khatedar. Under these circumstances, the sale of property in sequence to various parties by the respondent and keep on adding the purchasers as parties in the suit endlessly was interfered by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. The said judgment is distinguishable here. The learned Single Judge relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon – AIR 2007 SC 2209, wherein, the Apex court has clearly held that plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party but under Order 22 Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party. However, 3/3 power of a Court to add a party to a proceeding cannot depend solely on the question whether he has interest in the suit property. The question is whether the right of a person may be affected if he is not added as party. Such right, however, will necessarily include an enforceable legal right. Thus, impleadment of a party under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC is just to give an opportunity to the defend the suit to a person who is genuinely interested in the suit property. If such party is impleaded under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, said order of the learned trial court cannot be held to be suffering from any error apparent on the face of it, be that the error of fact or error of law, and that requires no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Col.Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 1561. Consequently, this writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to opposite party and learned trial court. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.5 baweja/-