R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Dholpur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 22, Rule 10 read with Order 1, Rule 10 CPC.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that during the pendency of the proceedings amongst the brothers, the petitioners had bought the share of Santosh Kumar, respondent No. 3 before this Court. His share in the property was one -third. Therefore, the said share was bought by them through a registered sale -deed. Therefore, they are vitally interested in the outcome of the civil suit filed among the respondents for partition of the property. Hence, the petitioners are a necessary party to the suit. However, the learned Judge has dismissed their application without any rhyme or reason. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the property in question was bought by the petitioners during the pendency of the civil suit. Therefore, the transaction is clearly covered under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.;