- (1.) Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S.S.Dvivedi for the petitioners and learned counsel, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma for the respondents.
(2.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the interveners-petitioners against the order dated 07.07.2014 passed by Sub Judge I, Jamui in Title Suit No.43 of 2010 whereby the prayer of the interveners-petitioners for being added as party-defendant in the suit has been rejected. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the ancestor of other respondent of this writ application. During the pendency of the suit being Title Suit No.43 of 2010, the original defendant, Shyam Kumar Gupta sold the property to the present interveners by registered sale deed dated 28.07.2010. After sale deed, he died and then the plaintiff filed substitution application and substituted the legal representatives who are the respondents. The present petitioners then filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Order XXII Rule 10 for being added as party on the ground that they have purchased the property from the original defendant. The court below has rejected this application on the ground that the petitioners are not necessary party and that the plaintiffs have already examined all the witnesses in the case. The documents were also produced and in fact, the plaintiff's case has already been closed. The power of attorney holder was also examined.
(3.) The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioners are the purchasers of the suit property, they have right to defend their interest because the petitioners have purchased the entire property and in the present case, the suit is for the specific performance of contract alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff-respondent No.1 with the original defendant, Shyam Kumar Gupta.;