A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 23. 2. 1988 passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. whereby he has dismissed the application of the petitioner Subhas Chandra Hisaria under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. for being impleaded as a party in the suit.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this case are that a suit was filed by Sunil Sondhi impleading the State of Rajasthan and Additional Collector & Secretary, Mandi Vikas Samiti, Hanumangarh Junction as party defendants to the suit. THE allegations are that there are two pieces of plots No. 1 and 2 situated at the Mandi area in Hanumangarh town, which were wrongly allotted in favour of Subhash Chandra Hisaria as these plots were reserved for Agro-Service Centre and some more allegations were levelled regarding illegality in the allotment of both these plots by auction sale in favour of Subhash Chandra Hisaria. In that suit, an application was made by Subhash Chandra Hisaria for being impleaded as a party defendant to the suit as he is a necessary party because the plots in question have been sold to him by auction and sale has been confirmed by the order dated 2. 1. 1988. It is also alleged that possession of the plots has already been delivered to the petitioner on 5. 1. 1988. THE learned Munsif Magistrate has found that since the State of Rajasthan is already impleaded as a party, therefore, it is not necessary to permit the petitioner Subhash Chandra Hisaria be impleaded as a party defendant to the suit. I have heard both the learned counsel at length. The admitted facts are that both these plots in question were auctioned by the respondents State and Mandi Vikas Samiti and the auction bids knocked down in favour of Subhash Chandra. This sale was also confirmed by the order dated 2. 1. 1988 which has been shown to me by Mr. Calla. It is also alleged that possession has also been delivered to the petitioner on 5. 1. 1988. So far as the possession is concerned, learned counsel for the non-petitioner seriously disputed. Be that as it may. the fact remains that the sale has been made and it has been confirmed by the order dated 2. 1. 1988. The main grave man of the suit is cancellation ' of this sale made in favour of Subhash Chandra. Therefore, Subhash Chandra is a necessary party and the dispute cannot be resolved completely unless Subhash Chandra is made a party to the suit. In fact, the ultimate looser in Subhash Chandra and his rights are going to be affected by the result, of this suit. Thus, he is a necessary party and his application for being impleaded as a party should be allowed. In the result, I allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the learned Munsif dated 23 2. 1988. Subhash Chandra Hisaria may be impleaded as a party in the suit. No order as to costs. .;