- (1.) I .A. No. 3157 of 2010 filed by Krishna Buildcon, a partnership firm for impleading it in the present second appeal under Order I Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) IT is submitted by Sri Bhaiya Vishwajit Kumar, advocate for the intervener that during the pendency of this appeal, proposed intervener entered into an agreement with the respondent nos. 1 and 2 Parmeshwar Sahu and Prem Prakash Sahu for development of land in dispute. It is further submitted that he has already spent huge amount for development of the said land as per the agreement. It is then submitted that the proposed intervener have no knowledge about the pendency of this second appeal and when he came to know about the same, he filed this application for impleading him party in the instant case. He submits that as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1999)2 SCC 577 as well as (2007)10 SCC 82 proposed intervener may be impleaded in this appeal. It is submitted that since proposed intervener entered into an agreement with respondents for development of some of the suit property and he spent a huge amount over the said portion of the suit property thus, he is entitled to be impleaded in this Second Appeal as per the provision contained under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.
(3.) THE aforesaid submission of learned counsel can not be accepted. In the judgment reported in (1999) 2 SCC 577, the proposed intervener has purchased suit property pendente lite.;