THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2805 of 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 01.04.2011 in I.A.No.280 of 2009 in O.S.No.29 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Jagtial, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein, the plaintiffs, under Order I Rule 10 CPC, for impleadment of the 5th respondent as a party defendant, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The petitioners herein filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents 1 to 3 from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. According to the plaintiffs, their father Gangula Bhoomaiah, who was the absolute owner of an extent of 1889 sq.yards in Sy.No.794 situate in Metpalli, he having purchased the same from Pothu Ashanna and others under registered sale deed dated 13.08.1996 and was in possession and enjoyment of the same and has also constructed a wall on the northern side of the suit land abutting the PWD Road and his name was also mutated in the revenue accounts, including pahani, and that after the death of Gangula Bhoomaiah, his sons/the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the suit land. Alleging that the defendants, without having any right or interest over the suit land, were trying to interfere with plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment, the plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction. 4. The defendants filed a written statement contesting the suit. While so, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.280 of 2009, under Order I Rule 10 CPC, seeking to implead R4 and R5 as parties on the ground that despite the status quo order dated 04.04.2008, the 1st defendant and his wife D4 executed a sale deed dated 19.12.2008 in favour of the proposed defendant/ D5 in respect of the suit land, in violation of the orders of the court and, therefore, D4 and D5 are proper and necessary parties to the suit. 5. The 1st respondent/D1 filed a counter stating that the suit land is situate in Sy.No.794 even according to the plaintiffs, whereas the land covered by the sale deed dated 19.12.2008 is an extent of 480 Sq. yards situate in Sy.No.796 and, therefore, the proposed D4 and D5 are not proper and necessary parties to the suit. The proposed D5 also filed a similar counter stating that she purchased 480 Sq. yards in Sy.No.796 from D1 and his wife D4, which has nothing to do with the suit land and she is not a proper or necessary party to the suit. 6. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the application on the ground that transferee from the defendant pendente lite is neither a proper or necessary party as he is bound by the decree in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the present revision. 7. According to the plaintiffs, they are in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 1889 Sq. yards in Sy.No.794 and that in spite of the status quo granted on 04.04.2008, D1 and his wife/proposed D4 executed a registered sale deed dated 19.12.2008 in respect of the suit land to an extent of 480 Sq. yards in favour of proposed D5. 8. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed subsequent to filing of the suit. D1 and proposed D5 resisted the application on the ground that the land purchased by D5 is in Sy.No.796 as mentioned in the sale deed. Though the sale deed mentions the survey number as 796, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the said extent of 480 Sq.yards sold under the registered sale deed in respect of proposed D5 subsequent to filing of the suit is part of the suit land of 1889 Sq. yards. 9. The question as to whether or not the said land of 480 Sq.yards purchased by the proposed D5 forms part of the suit land in Sy.No.794, as contended by the plaintiffs, or is it a distinct piece of land situate in Sy.No.796 as alleged by D1 and proposed D5, is a matter to be considered by the trial Court on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, if the land purchased by the proposed D5 is distinct and separate and unconnected with the suit land, then D4 and D5 would neither be proper nor necessary parties to the suit. However, in view of the specific contentions of the plaintiffs that the said extent of 480 Sq. yards forms part of the suit land, the validity or otherwise of the said contention has to be necessarily considered only on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. For an effective and comprehensive adjudication of the real dispute of the parties, the presence of proposed D4 and D5 before the Court would be necessary. Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, under which the said application was filed, states that: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” Thus, the above provision enables the Court to permit impleadment of the proposed party when once the presence of such party is considered necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. Order XXII Rule 10 CPC also states that in case of creation or devolution of any interest in case of the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by the leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. 10. No doubt, the doctrine of lis pendens enshrined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act renders the decree binding on the transferee when such transfer, pending the suit, is effected without the leave or authorization of the Court. But, in the present case, the contention of the defendants is that the alienation in favour of D5 is in respect of some other land which is unconnected with the suit land and in a different survey number. On the other hand, the plaintiff contended that though the survey number is differently mentioned in the sale deed, the land alienated forms part of the suit land. For resolving the dispute, the presence of proposed defendants 4 and 5 is certainly necessary before the Court and the provisions of Order I Rule 10 enable the plaintiffs to seek impleadment of proposed D4 and D5 as proper and necessary parties because their presence is absolutely necessary for an effective and complete adjudication of the real dispute between the parties in a substantial manner. 11. It is stated that in connected appeal A.S.No.32 of 2003, the petitioner herein/the appellants filed A.S.M.P.No.295 of 2008, seeking a direction to the respondents to maintain status quo during the pendency of the appeal in respect of land in an extent of 96 Sq.yards in Sy.No.796, and this Court by order dated 21.07.2008, recorded the statements of the respondents therein that they were not making any alterations and were not proposing to do so and that alleging violation of the said undertaking, the petitioners filed contempt case C.C.No.163 of 2009 and this Court by order dated 17.09.2009, dismissed the said contempt case. A perusal of the order in C.C.No.163 of 2009, a copy of which is filed by the respondents, would show that the case was dismissed as the respondents therein were not shown to have in any way violated the undertaking given by them in the counter filed in A.S.M.P.No.295 of 2008 that they will not alienate or alter the subject matter of the appeal. It was also mentioned that prima facie the plot sold by the 2nd respondent (D1 herein) was shown to be situate beyond 100 feet from the centre of the national highway, whereas the subject matter of the appeal was within the distance of 100 feet. The above order also notes that as per the plan filed by D1 herein, the plot sold by him was not abutting the disputed site and there is some other land in between. It is to be noted that in the above said order in the contempt case, it was also mentioned that the petitioners therein i.e., the plaintiffs herein were alleging that both the plots are abutting. It was further held that the dispute regarding the identity of the land cannot, however, be gone into in the above contempt proceedings. Thus, the dispute regarding the location and identity of the land did not fall for consideration in the above contempt proceedings and the same was left open. The dismissal of the contempt proceedings on the ground that the alleged violation of the undertaking has not been established, does not come in the way of adjudication of the dispute between the parties regarding the identity and location of the land during the course of regular trial in the suit. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon the decision in AMIT KUMAR SHAW & ANR. V. FARIDA KHATOON & ANR.[1], wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “The object of Order I Rule 10 is to discourage contests on technical pleas, and to save honest and bona fide claimants from being non-suited. The power to strike out or add parties can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the proceedings. Under this Rule, a person may be added as a party to a suit in the following two cases: (1) when he ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, and is not joined so, or (2) when, without his presence, the questions in the suit cannot be completely decided.” “The power of a Court to add a party to a proceeding can not 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 a party. Such right, however, will include necessarily an enforceable legal right.” “Under Order XXII Rule 10, no detailed inquiry at the stage of granting leave is contemplated. The Court has only to be prima facie satisfied for exercising its discretion in granting leave for continuing the suit by or against the person on whom the interest has devolved by assignment or devolution. The question about the existence and validity of the assignment or devolution can be considered at the final hearing of the proceedings. The Court has only to be prima facie satisfied for exercising its discretion in granting leave for continuing the suit.” “An alienee pendente lite is bound by the final decree that may be passed in the suit. Such an alienee can be brought on record both under this rule as also under Order I Rule 10. Since under the doctrine of lis pendens a decree passed in the suit during the pendency of which a transfer is made binds the transferee, his application to be brought on record should ordinarily be allowed.” 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the decision in SAVITRI DEVI v. DISTRICT JUDGE, GORAKHPUR AND OTHERS[2], wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “Order I Rule 10 CPC enables the Court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code.” 14. Having regard to the nature of the dispute raised and the rival contentions of the parties, the plaintiffs, contending that the land sold under the sale deed dated 19.12.2008 in favour of the proposed D5 is part of the suit land and the defendants disputing the same and contending that it is situate away from the suit land in a different survey number, it is held that the presence of proposed D4 and D5 is absolutely necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the real dispute and for settling of the issues, and so, they are proper and necessary parties to the suit. 15. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for impleadment of D4 and D5, is unsustainable, and the same is, accordingly, set aside. 16. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY 01st November, 2011 KSM [1] 2005(3) Supreme 670 [2] AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 976