A M K JAMBULINGA MUDALIAR Vs. VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in I. A. No. 620 of 1995 in O. S. No. 508 of 1988, on the file of the Sub Court , Vellore . The petitioner herein is a third party to the suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of their l/3rd share in a Schedule property and for declaration of their title to the plaint B Schedule property and also for possession. Defendants 1 to 7 filed an application seeking an order of interim injunction restraining defendants 8 and 9 from alienating the properties. It appears that interim injunction was granted. But without disclosing the same, defendants 8 to 14 sold the suit properties item Nos. 1, 4 and 5 in the A schedule to the petitioner herein during the pendency of the suit. The properties were purchased under the sale deed dated 20. 3. 1991. In I. A. No. 567 of 1992, notice was served upon the petitioner herein since he committed the breach of the order of injunction granted by the trial court. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed I. A. No. 620 of 1995 for permission to implead himself as a party- defendant in the suit. But this I. A. was dismissed by the trial court. It is against that order, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner herein.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as a portion of the property was sold by some of the defendants they are not interested in prosecuting the suit. In order to safeguard his interest in a portion of the suit property, he must be impleaded as a party in the suit. According to the petitioner he has no notice with regard to the suit and the interim order passed therein. He is a bona fide purchaser for value. It was submitted that even if he is considered to have purchased the suit property pendente lite, his interest over the suit property, which he has purchased, cannot be ignored. THErefore, he should be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit.

(3.) IN Mohammed Farook v. District Judge, A. I. R. 1993 All. 8, the Allahabad High Court held that the' law is settled on the point that the plaintiff is the sole architect of the plaint. It is the plaintiff who has right to choose his own adversary against whom he seeks the relief. Where there was no allegation or any cause of action against the application, who sought to be impleaded as defendant in the suit, the more apprehension that the plaintiff and the defendant of the suit might collusively get their suit decided which would adversarily affect the rights of the applicant was not enough for impleadment of the applicant as defendant in the suit. It is well-settled that any decree or order passed by a court would not affect a person who is not a party is the suit or the proceedings it is not, always necessary to implead a person in a suit. It is settled that impleadment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of the suit. There must be such facts and circumstances to show that unless the person is impleaded in the suit or in the proceedings there is likelihood of further litigation in the same matter.'