PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) As these two Civil Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India and two Civil Misc. Appeals filed under Section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1 (l) of CPC involve common questions of law and facts, they with the consent of learned counsel for the parties were heard together and are being decided by this common order. Copy of the order may be placed in each of the files. Applicants-petitioners-Appellants by way of these petitions/appeals have assailed the order dated 20.5.2014 passed in each of the four suits (C.S.No.77/98, 78/98, 129/98 and 76/98, which also involve almost similar question of law and facts) whereby the learned trial Court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur has dismissed the application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 22, Rule 10 read with Order 6, Rule 17 CPC filed by each of the petitioner/appellant.
(2.) Brief relevant facts leading to these petitions/appeals are that plaintiff-respondents filed aforesaid four different suits against defendant-respondents for cancellation of four different registered exchange-deeds all dated 28.7.1987 and for permanent injunction with the averment that defendant-Hero Harjani (who died during pendency of the suits) surreptitiously got the power of attorney executed in his favour from Shri Raghuveer Sen (predecessor of plaintiffs) on 16.1.1981 and by taking advantage of illness of Shri Raghuveer Sen and his habit of drinking on the strength of this power of attorney fraudulently and in connivance with defendant-respondent executed these registered exchange-deeds on 28.7.1987. Respondent-defendant filed written statement and denied plaint averments. During the course of trial of these suits, each of the applicant purchased the suit property (subject matter of each of the exchange-deeds) from plaintiffs by way of four different registered sale-deeds and filed application in each suit under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 22, Rule 10 read with Order 6, Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to substitute/implead him as plaintiff as he has become owner of the suit property after purchasing it from plaintiffs, the legal representatives of late Shri Raghuveer Sen. It was also prayed in the application that the applicant may be allowed to incorporate consequential amendment in the plaint in view of the subsequent developments during pendency of the suit. It is to be noted that it is not in dispute that each of the applicant purchased the suit property knowing well that it is subject matter of registered exchange-deeds and for their cancellation suits are pending in the Court. In the reply to the application filed by the respondent-defendant, it was averred that the sale-deeds in favour of applicants are null and void since the plaintiffs had no title and interest in the suit property as it was already transferred to them by way of registered exchange-deeds by Shri Raghuveer Sen and unless and until the exchange-deeds are cancelled by Court, plaintiffs were not entitled to sell the suit property. It was also averred that applicant is neither a necessary nor proper party in the suit and he is not entitled to be substituted or impleaded as plaintiff in the suit as his presence is not required for the disposal of the suit. It was also said that amendment in the plaint is misconceived as it is not required for determination of questions involved in the suit.
(3.) It was submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that as the plaintiff-respondents during the pendency of the suits have assigned or created interest in the property in their favour by way of registered sale-deeds and right and interest of the plaintiffs has devolved upon them, they deserve to be impleaded/substituted as plaintiff so that they cannot only proceed against the defendant-respondent in the suits in a more appropriate manner, but also to protect their rights devolved upon them under sale-deeds. It was further submitted that plaintiffs are permanent citizen of USA and after sell of suit property in favour of applicants, they have almost lost interest in the same and applicant 's rights and interest in the suit property will be adversely affected in case the plaintiffs collude with the respondent-defendant and choose not to proceed with the suits and, therefore, their presence before the Court as plaintiff is necessary so that the suits for cancellation of exchange-deeds may reach to a logical conclusion and they are decided on merit. It was also submitted that if the applicants are impleaded/substituted as plaintiff they can not only defend and protect their rights in a better way but also make efforts that best evidence available come before the Court. It was further submitted that after execution of sale-deeds, plaintiffs have lost their right, interest and title in the suit property and now only applicants are affected person by exchange-deeds in question and therefore, they are not only proper but necessary party and in their absence, the issue involved in the suits cannot be decided by the Court. It was further submitted that present applications were filed by the applicants soon after purchase of the suit property and as plaintiffs are having no objection if the applicants are added/substituted as plaintiffs, defendant-respondent has no right to object it as it is between applicants and present plaintiffs to decide whether applicants may be permitted to be made plaintiff in the suit or not. It was contended that once the applicants are added/substituted as plaintiff, the consequential amendment in the plaint is inevitable to be allowed.;