JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - This is a suit for specific performance filed by Gurbir Singh Ghuman against M/s Daulat Industries Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Civil Lines, Opposite Police Lines, Ludhiana in the year 1987 through its Managing Director Shri Ramesh Kumar on the basis of agreement dated 29.10.84 alleged to have been executed by the latter in his favour. 2. During the pendency of the suit, one Satish Kumar made application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC for an order for being impleaded as defendant. It was alleged by him in this application that there was liability due to the tune of Rs. 3,89,894/-. Property belonging to M/s Daulat Industries was attached for the recovery of Rs. 3,89,894/- as arrears due against them by the Collector. An entry was made in the revenue record on 27.5.85 with regard to the factum of attachment of this property. Proceedings for attachment were pending in the year 1984 and this fact was in the knowledge of the parties. Property was put to public auction. It is alleged that Satish Kumar happened to be the highest bidder and his bid was accepted and property was sold to him. Possession was delivered to him by the Collector. Sale was confirmed by Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. It is further alleged that after the purchase of the property, he constructed one Generator room, two servant quarters, two drawing rooms, eight bed rooms, two lobbies, two stores, two kitchens, four bath rooms, one verandah and is residing there with his father and elder brother and other members of the family. Mutation has also been sanctioned in his name. In the house tax record also, he is shown as owner in possession of this house. It is further alleged that he is bona fide purchaser at a public auction of this property measuring 1731 square yards for a consideration of Rs. 2.15 lacs and sale certificate was issued by Collector, Ludhiana on March 6, 1990 in his favour. It is alleged that the agreement set up by Gurbir Singh is forged with a view to causing him wrongful loss inasmuch as in agreement dated 29.10.84, the property of Mrs. Kamlesh Jain is mentioned though the agreement between Mrs. Kamlesh Jain and the defendant is said to be dated 23.1.85. It is alleged that the agreement set up by Gurbir Singh is forged with a view to causing him wrongful loss inasmuch as in agreement dated 29.10.84, the property of Mrs. Kamlesh Jain is mentioned though the agreement between Mrs. Kamlesh Jain and the defendant is said to be dated 23.1.85. He is bona fide purchaser in possession for consideration at public auction, sale in his favour should take precedence and he is a necessary party. 3. Vide order dated 5.1.94, Additional Senior Sub Judge. Ludhiana declined the application of Satish Kumar filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC for an order to be impleaded as defendant. It is this order which has been called in question by Satish Kumar through this revision. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC lays down as follows :- "10(2) Court may strike out or add parties - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added." 4. Satish Kumar claims to have purchased this property at a Public auction held by the Collector. Sale certificate had been issued in his favour. Sale was confirmed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. He purchased this property for a consideration of Rs. 2.15 lacs. He says that he bona fide purchased this property. 5. From the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10, it is quite clear that any body who has some interest in the subject matter of the suit should be impleaded as a party as his presence will enable the Court to adjudicate upon the rival claims more effectually and completely. He says that he bona fide purchased this property. 5. From the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10, it is quite clear that any body who has some interest in the subject matter of the suit should be impleaded as a party as his presence will enable the Court to adjudicate upon the rival claims more effectually and completely. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in Smt. Saila Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dass and another, AIR 1958 SC 394 the Honble Supreme Court has laid down that as a purchaser pendente lite, a person will be bound by the proceeding taken by the party in whose favour the decree is passed in execution of her decree and justice requires that she should be given an opportunity to protect her rights. He submitted that auction purchaser is bound by the principle enshrined in Section 52 T.P. Act and as such Satish Kumar is not necessary party. He will take property subject to the result of the suit. 6. In this case, strictly speaking the provisions of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act are not attracted as it was a State debt which was recovered by the Collector under the Punjab Land Revenue Act whereas Gurbir Singh is enforcing agreement in his favour allegedly executed by M/s Daulat Industries. State debt has to be given precedence over private liabilities. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the liability of Rs. 3,89,894/- arose against M/s Daulat Industries since before 29.10.84. He further submits that the agreement dated 29.10.84 was devised to defeat or delay the claim of the creditor i.e. the State in this case. He submits that all these points can be gone into by the court if Satish Kumar is ordered to be impleaded as defendant. For effectual and complete disposal of the suit, it is necessary that Satish Kumar be allowed to be impleaded as defendant in the suit. So, this revision is allowed. Revision allowed.