JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - The petitioners prayer for implement as a party was declined by the trial Court and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by him was dismissed. 2. I have heard Shri A. P. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri C. B. Goel, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri A. R. Takkar, learned Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. 3. The reasoning given by the trial Court for dismissing the application was that a separate suit regarding title of the suit property between the parties is already pending in the Court of Shri Vimal Sapra, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, prior to this suit. The rights of the parties regarding ownership are to be determined in that suit, whereas in the present suit the simple question involved is as to whether the defendant Corporation is competent to revoke or withdraw the sanction already granted to the plaintiff regarding construction of the building in question. 4. I have carefully gone through the impugned order and the averments contained in the application under Order 1 Rule 10, particularly the sale deeds set up by the applicant that he had purchased the plot. He being a co- owner has got a right to defend his property. In the absence of a co-sharer, no decree can be passed. In fact, for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties, the presence of the petitioner is not only essential but he is a proper and necessary party. Even a bona fide purchaser of the property during the pendency of the litigation becomes owner of such property and is entitled to be heard before any order is passed affecting his vital interest in the property as held in Jagmail Singh v. Amarjit Kaur, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 423. Reliance is also placed on Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others, (1999)2 SCC 577. 5. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The petitioner-applicant Is allowed to be impleaded as defendant in the array of defendants. 6. The parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 27.11.2000. Petition accepted.