R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 17.9.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jalandhar, who allowed the application of the respondent Bhupinder Kumar under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- "Bhupinder Kumar filed a suit for possession and for mandatory injunction against M/s K.R.S. Builders and others alleging that he is owner of the property in the head-note of the plaint and that the said property is in the illegal possession of the defendants, who have raised some construction, and, therefore, he may be delivered the possession of the property by giving direction to the defendants to remove the Malba lying on the land in dispute. The suit was contested by the defendants on the plea that they are owners of the property and they have purchased the same from its rightful owners. During the pendency of the suit, one application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that it has come to his notice that the defendants M/s K.R.S. Builders have further sold the property to various persons and on enquiries of the plaintiff there are few persons to whom the property was been sold and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the presence of these transferees before the Court is necessary, lest tomorrow complications may not arise for the plaintiff/respondent. This application was contested by the present petitioners on the ground that these transferees are not necessary parties, rather the plaintiff/respondent has not added the previous owners of the property. The application in question is a mala fide affair. The learned trial Court for the following reasons as given in para No. 5 of the impugned order allowed the application :- "I have heard the rival submissions and have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties coupled with the application and reply thereof. I find myself with the respectful submissions of the applicant Shri V.K. Sareen. In para No. 7 of the preliminary objections it has been specifically alleged by the present defendants as to their having sold the property to several other persons, though their names have not been disclosed by way of the present application, the applicant wants to implead those persons, who are the subsequent purchasers as the present suit is for possession by way of removing the Malba. The applicants are necessary parties and their impleading as defendants shall assist the court in adjudicating the subject matter of the present case effectively and completely. The proposed amendment as sought by the present applicant, shall in no manner change the nature of the suit, as it has been sought after impleading of the applicants as a party, in whose name the sale deeds have been effected, which are alleged by the present plaintiff to be illegal. The application is hereby allowed. subject to Rs. 750/- as costs." Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Salil Sagar, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.;