- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17th April. 2008 passed by learned Sub -Judge -V, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum (East) in Title (Partition) Suit No. 46 of 1989 (Annexure -3 to the memo of the present petition) on an application preferred by respondent no. 1 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as C.P.C.). whereby present respondent no. 1 has been impleaded as party -defendant in pending suit, which is filed by the present petitioner (original plaintiff), because respondent no. 1 has purchased the property by registered sale deed from the co -defendant. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17th April, 2008, whereby, respondent no. 1 has been joined as party -defendant to the suit, the petitioner (original plaintiff) has preferred this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: - (i) It appears that the present petitioner is the original plaintiff, who has instituted Title (Partition) Suit No. 46 of 1989 against some of the parties. Thereafter, it appears that some of the defendants have sold away the suit properties, which are involved in the suit and, therefore, they were joined as party defendants to the suit. Present respondent no. 1 is also one of the said purchasers of the suit property. (ii) It appears that present respondent no. 1 has purchased the suit property by registered sale deed no. 9454 dated 31st December, 2007. Thereafter, it appears that present respondent no. 1 has preferred an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. in Title (Partition) Suit No. 46 of 1989 for impleading himself as a defendant. (iii) It appears from the facts of the case that by registered sale deed, present respondent no. 1 has now got interest in plot no. 266 Khata No. 338 and because of this, he has been impleaded as party -defendant. If respondent no. 1 has interest in the suit property, then he ought to have been joined as party -defendant. (iv) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that if any party is purchasing the suit property during the pendency of the suit, he is not a necessary party, but, as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumtibai and Others vs. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj.) through Mankanwar (Smt.) W/o Parasmal Chordia (Dead) and Others, as reported in (2007)10 SCC 82, to avoid further difficulties in execution proceedings, if at all, the present petitioner (original plaintiff) succeeds in the partition suit, any party, who can show any semblance of title or interest, can prefer an application for impleadment of a party. Paragraph 14 of the judgment reads as under: - "14. In view of the aforesaid decisions we are of the opinion that Kasturi case is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against S, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. In our opinion, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced.  (emphasis supplied) (v) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no much objection, if respondent no. 1 is joined as party -defendant in the pending suit, but, he may be directed not to further transfer the property, so that the title suit, preferred by the present petitioner, can be brought to an end, without further loss of time. (vi) Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submitted that they will not going to transfer, sale or otherwise alienate the suit property, during pendency of the suit. (vii) In view of the submission of learned counsel for respondent no. 1, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that let a direction may be given to the trial Court to expedite the hearing of the pending suit. (viii) Learned counsel for the petitioner (original plaintiff) submitted that he shall file an application before the trial Court so that none of the defendants may now transfer the suit property. As and when the said application is preferred by the petitioner, the same will be decided as expeditiously as possible so as to avoid further joining of the defendants in the pending suit and the suit may be brought to an end, within the time limit given hereinafter. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court as there is no error, committed by the trial Court, much less, an error apparent on the face of the record and, I hereby direct the trial Court to expedite the hearing of Title (Partition) Suit No. 46 of 1989. so that the same may be decided on or before 30th March, 2010.
(3.) THE petition is, hereby, disposed of in view of the aforesaid observations and directions.;