V.M. Jain, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the applicant-petitioner M/s Wimco Limited against the order dated 18.9.2002, passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, for being impleaded as a defendant in the suit.
2. Horam and Mahipal had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Lal Singh, etc. During the pendency of the said suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, was filed by the applicant-petitioner, M/s Wimco Limited, for being impleaded as one of the defendants on the ground that the applicant-Company had purchased land measuring 168 kanals 10 marlas and that the land involved in the present suit formed part of the said land which was purchased by it and the applicant-company was also in possession thereof. It was alleged that even though the plaintiffs knew about this fact but knowingly and intentionally they had not impleaded the applicant-Company as necessary party in the suit. It was alleged that impleading the applicant-Company as a defendant in the suit, was necessary and essential in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication of the matter involved in the suit. The said application was contested by the plaintiffs by filing reply and alleging therein that the applicant-Company was not a necessary party inasmuch the applicant-Company had purchased the suit land during the pendency of the suit and as such, could not be impleaded as a party in the suit. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, the trial Court dismissed the application of the applicant-Company under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, vide order dated 18.9.2002. Aggrieved against the same, the applicant-Company filed the present revision petition in this Court. Notice of motion was issued.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents submitted before me that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application of the applicant-petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, inasmuch as the petitioner having purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit, was not a necessary or proper party and could not be impleaded as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC. Reliance was placed on Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and Ors., 1996(5) Supreme Court Cases 539. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner-Company submitted before me that even if the petitioner could not be impleaded as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, still the petitioner was entitled to be allowed to defend the suit on behalf of its vendors as provided under Order 22 Rule 10, CPC. In Sarvinder Singh's case (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the person who had purchase the suit property during the pendency of the suit, could not be held to be a necessary or proper party and could not be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, especially when the alienation was hit by the doctrine of Us pendens by operation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this authority, in my opinion, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the application of the applicant-petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC. However, the applicant could certainly be allowed to defend the suit on behalf of its vendors, especially when the applicant-petitioner Company had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit, as provided under Order 22 Rule 10, CPC, which reads as under:-
'10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit.- (1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devaluation of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.
(2) xxx xxx xxx'
5. In view of the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10, CPC, referred to above, in my opinion, even if the petitioner could not be impleaded as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, still the applicant-petitioner could be allowed to defend the suit on behalf of its vendors (defendants) as the applicant had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit. After having sold the suit property, the defendants (vendors of the applicant) would be left with no interest in the suit property and in such circumstances, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to allow the applicant to safeguard its interest by defending the suit (on behalf of its vendors). Reliance in this regard may be placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case reported as Khemchand Shankar Choudhary and Anr. v. Vishnu Hari Patil and Ors., A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 124. Since the applicant-petitioner had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit and is being allowed to defend the suit on behalf of its vendors, needless to say that the applicant-petitioner would not be, entitled to file fresh written statement and/or to take a new stand, other than the stand already taken by the defendants, who had sold the suit property to it during the pendency of the suit.
6. For the reasons recorded above, the present revision petition is allowed, the order dated 18.9.2002, passed by the trial Court, is set aside and the applicant-petitioner is allowed to defend the suit on behalf of its vendors, as provided under Order 2 Rule 10, CPC.
7. Since the proceedings before the trial Court were stayed by this Court, the parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 16.12.2003 for further proceedings in accordance with law.