JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - Petitioners prayer for impleadment as necessary parties to the proceedings was declined by trial Court vide impugned order dated 26.3.1999. Hence, this revision petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Kaushalya Devi had filed a suit for joint possession against Giani Ram, defendant. The suit was contested by the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, certain issues were framed. During the pendency of the suit, Giani Ram, defendant, had sold the land comprised in Khewat No. 225 Khatouni Nos. 539, 540 and 541 as per Jamabandi for the year 1989-90, vide registered sale deed dated 16.5.1997 in favour of the present petitioners. The petitioners have purchased this land out of land measuring 155 kanals 9 marlas for a consideration of Rs. 3,60,000/-. 3. The petitioners claiming themselves to be bona fide purchasers pray that they may be impleaded as party to the proceedings. The trial Court rejected their claim on the ground that their claim is mainly hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is not an exceptional ground to decline the prayer of the petitioners for their impleadment to the suit. Shri Rakesh Nagpal, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Seth Beni Chand (since dead) now by LRs. v. Smt. Kamla Kunwar etc., 1976 Current Law Journal (Civil) 586 SC, to aver that the petitioners are not necessary parties to the proceedings. 4. I have gone through the facts of this case. To my mind, the case set up by the respondents is totally contrary to the law laid down in the latest authority of the Apex Court reported as Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others, 1999(2) Supreme Court Cases 577. A bona fide purchaser is a necessary party and he can be impleaded as a party to the suit. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of the multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code. 5. Avoidance of the multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code. 5. In Khemchand Shankar Choudhari and another v. Vishnu Hari Patil and others, 1983(1) Supreme Court Cases 18, it was held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property, which is the subject-matter of a suit is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. In the present case also, if the petitioners are not allowed to be impleaded as parties to the suit, they are likely to suffer on account of any order that may be passed in the suit because they having become owners of the property as a bona fide purchasers would be affected by the decision to be rendered in the suit. They, thus, have a right to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings and to be heard before any order is passed in the suit. 6. In view of the above, the petitioners who are stated to be bona fide purchasers of the property in dispute, are necessary parties to the suit. 7. Resultantly, this petition is allowed after setting aside the order of the trial Court. Since the suit relates to the year 1992, the petitioners should co-operate with the Court for the final disposal of the case and they should bring their evidence within the limited period to be fixed by the trial Court. Trial Court is also directed to take effective measures to decide the case expeditiously. Parties through counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 4.10.2000. Petition allowed.