- (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.04.2010 passed by the District Judge, Rajsamand, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and has impleaded the present petitioner who was a subsequent purchaser of the property in dispute as party-defendant.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1, Bharat Paliwal, submitted an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned Judge. In the application, he claimed on 03.10.2011 that he and respondent No.2, Bhagwan Lal had entered into an agreement to sell a piece of land for a consideration of Rs.25 lacs. As part payment of the consideration, Rs.1 lac was paid to respondent No.2, Bhagwan Lal. Subsequently, he approached Bhagwan Lal for getting the sale deed registered. But, Bhagwan Lal declined to get the registration of the sale-deed done. Since there was an arbitration clause in the agreement to sell, he approached to the arbitrator for initiation of arbitration proceedings. Simultaneously, he filed an application under Section 9 of the Act before the Court. The respondent No.2, Bhagwan Lal, filed reply to the application and denied the averments made in the application. Subsequently, respondent No.1, Bharat Paliwal, came to know that Bhagwan Lal had sold the land to Mangi Lal Gurjar, the petitioner. Therefore, he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the petitioner as party defendant in the application. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge by order dated 19.04.2012 allowed the application and impleaded the petitioner as a party- defendant. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Sanjay Nahar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that agreement to sell dated 03.10.2011 was between respondent Nos.1 and 2 and was not between respondent No.1 and the petitioner. Therefore, even if there were an arbitration clause, the said arbitration clause was applicable upon respondent No.2. However, as the petitioner was not a party to the said agreement, it was inapplicable upon him. Hence, he cannot be forced to enter into an arbitration proceedings. Therefore, according to him, the learned Judge has erred in allowing the application. Mr. B.L. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, has supported the impugned order. The contention raised by the learned counsel is misplaced. For, admittedly the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser of the land from respondent No.2, Bhagwan Lal. Thus, he has stepped into the shoes of the original owner of the land. Hence, he is governed by the agreement to sale which was entered between respondent No.1 and the owner of the land, Bhagwan Lal. Moreover, in case the petitioner were not impleaded as a party-defendant, obviously he cannot be prevented from selling the property further. The subsequent sale made by him would only lead to more litigation and to further legal complications. Hence, in order to prevent further litigation, it is imperative that the petitioner be impleaded as a party- defendant.
(3.) HENCE, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.;