JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 25th May, 2010, whereby the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur allowed the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC impleading respondent no. 6 Ashok Kumar Agrawal to be party defendant no. 5, in the array of defendants. 2. The facts, necessary for the decision of instant writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent no.2 to 5 in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur, alleging that the respondent no.2 Municipal Board decided to auction four commercial plots ad measuring 10x15 feets and public notice was issued in this regard way-back on 13th September, 1994. The petitioner participated in the said auction by depositing money and being the highest bidder, auction of plot no. 2 was knocked down in his favour for a sum of Rs. 1,24,000/-. The petitioner deposited amount i.e. 31,000/- immediately under due receipt and auction was approved by the respondent no.3 Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Kotputli. Respondent no.2 Municipal Board recommended the auction in favour of the petitioner and sent the matter to the Government for its approval. Suddenly, after a lapse of 14 years, a notice was served by the respondent no.2 Municipal Board to the petitioner on 11th December, 2008, which suggested the cancellation of auction knocked down in favour of the petitioner. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent no.6 Ashok Kumar Agrawal purchased this plot in auction and deposited the amount with the respondent no. 2. Since the respondent no. 6 had purchased this plot in auction from the respondent no.2 Municipal Board, and his interest was involved in the plot in question, he filed the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC before the learned trial court imploring to be impleaded as a party defendant no.5 in the suit. The learned trial court allowed the said application, hence, this instant writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the cause of action in the suit arose to the petitioner when he received the notice, wherein the information of cancellation of auction was scribbled. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the cause of action in the suit arose to the petitioner when he received the notice, wherein the information of cancellation of auction was scribbled. When the cause of action arose and the suit was filed in the court, respondent no. 6 was not in existence. He is said to have purchased the said plot in question during the pendency of the suit. Thus, if any cause of action accrues to the respondent no. 6 that is a separate cause of action and if the respondent no.6 feels, he can file a separate suit in the court. But, since the respondent no.6 has purchased the plot in question in the auction during the pendency of suit, he cannot be permitted to be impleaded as party defendant no.5 in the suit. He has cited judgments of Surendra Singh v. Vishvanath & Others, reported in 2009 (5)Western Law Cases (Raj) 692 ; Shri Raj Kumar alias Rajinder Singh v. Smt. Bimla Kumari and Another, reported in AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 303 ; Brij Mohan v. The Civil Judge (JD), Chirawa & Ors., reported in 2007 Wester Law Cases (Raj.) UC 657 ; Kalu Ram Ahuja & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., reported in (2008) 10 SCC 696 ; and Moti lal v. Municipal Council, Pali & Others, reported in 2009(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1394 , in support thereof. 6. E Converso, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 contended that the respondent no. 6 Ashok Kumar Agrawal is a necessary party in the case, as he has purchased the same plot in auction, which is the subject matter of the suit pending before the learned trial court. If the respondent no. 6 is not permitted to be impleaded as a party party in the suit, his rights shall suffer and it shall cause him a great prejudice depriving him from seeking justice. Hence, he is a necessary party and his presence shall enable the court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 further defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper, which do not warrant any intervention. 7. Hence, he is a necessary party and his presence shall enable the court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 further defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper, which do not warrant any intervention. 7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner purchased the plot in question from the respondent no.2 in the year 1994. It is also an admitted fact that after cancellation of this auction, the petitioner filed a suit of declaration and injunction before the learned trial court and during the pendency of the suit, the respondent no.6 purchased the said plot in an open auction, which led him to file the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC imploring him to be impleaded as a party defendant in the array of defendants in the suit already pending before the court. 8. Reflecting over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant provisions of law, it is to be noticed that the provisions of Section 52 of Transfer Property Act, 1882, do not permit any sale and alienation of the property during the pendency of the suit or proceeding without the permission of the court. Upon a bare perusal of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, eminently clear that during the pendency of the suit or proceeding, the property cannot be alienated without the permission of the court. Further in the explanation, it is specifically stated that the purpose of this Section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, in the instant case, applying this law in the facts and circumstances, it is found that the suit had been filed by the petitioner against the respondent nos. 2 to 5 in the court earlier and during the pendency of the suit, the respondent no. 6 purchased the plot in question in an open auction from the respondent no. 2. If the rights of respondent no. 2 to 5 in the court earlier and during the pendency of the suit, the respondent no. 6 purchased the plot in question in an open auction from the respondent no. 2. If the rights of respondent no. 6 are at all affected, then he gets a separate cause of action and he can file a fresh suit before the competent court but by way of impleading respondent no.6 to be a party defendant in the petitioner's suit, the scope of suit cannot be permitted to be widened or enlarged. 9. It is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff is dominus litis and normally it is for him to select his adversary from whom he seeks relief and it is not for a court to ask him to join any other person to the suit. It is not province of a court of law to interfere with that right. If a plaintiff does not join the necessary or proper party, consequences will ensue and he will suffer. It is not a matter for the court to worry about. Hence, viewed from this angle, the learned trial court is found to have erred in allowing the application of respondent no.6 Ashok Kumar Agrawal filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC permitting him to be impleaded as a party defendant no. 5. 10. In the case of Moti lal (supra), the dispute was with regard to civil rights and Municipal Board entered into this dispute by issuing notice to the plaintiff upon which plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the Municipal Board. Respondent no. 2 and 3 filed an application to be impleaded as party in the suit but this Court held that by impleading respondent no. 2 and 3 in the suit shall only enlarge the scope of suit and shall change the nature of the suit also. Lower court permitted them to be impleaded as party respondent no. 2 and 3 but this Court found that the lower court had committed serious error in allowing such application. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 has also cited the judgments of Dhanalakshmi & Ors. v. P. Mohan & Ors., reported in 2007 DNJ (SC) 246 ; Rukmani v. Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur & Ors., reported in 2000(1) RLR 120 ; Sudhir G. Angur & Ors. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 has also cited the judgments of Dhanalakshmi & Ors. v. P. Mohan & Ors., reported in 2007 DNJ (SC) 246 ; Rukmani v. Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur & Ors., reported in 2000(1) RLR 120 ; Sudhir G. Angur & Ors. v. M. Sanjeev & Ors., reported in 2006(1) Western Law Cases (SC) Civil 312 ; Banshidhar & Ors. v. PHED & Ors., reported in 2000(1) RLR 693 ; Saroj Devi (Smt.) v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., reported in 2007(4) RLW 3046 ; in his favour but having carefully perused these judgments, it is found that the facts of these cases are altogether different and do not hold good on the facts of the instant case. 12. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, respondent no.6 is neither found to be necessary party nor a proper party to the suit on hand. There is a distinction between necessary party and proper party. A necessary party is one without whose presence, no effective decree or order can be passed. A proper party is one in whose presence a decree or order can be made, but whose presence is necessary for complete, final and effective adjudication of all issues involved in the suit. In other words, a necessary party is a party, who ought to have been joined as a party; and a proper party is a party, who should be joined as a party for convenience or expediency. In the case on hand, respondent no.6 is undeniably found to have purchased the plot in question in an open auction during the pendency of the suit and no relief has been sought by the petitioner against the respondent no. 6. In fact, it is a relief, which is found to have been sought against the respondents nos. 2 to 5, which cancelled the auction of the plot in question released in favour of the petitioner in the year 1994. Hence, from any stretch of imagination, respondent no.6 can neither be said to be a necessary party nor a proper party in the suit and thus, the learned trial court is found to have committed a grave error in impleading respondent no. 6 to be party defendant no. 5 in the suit, which deserves to be set aside. 13. Hence, from any stretch of imagination, respondent no.6 can neither be said to be a necessary party nor a proper party in the suit and thus, the learned trial court is found to have committed a grave error in impleading respondent no. 6 to be party defendant no. 5 in the suit, which deserves to be set aside. 13. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25th May, 2010 rendered by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur stands set aside. 14. Since the writ petition has been decided finally, no order is required to be passed in the stay application, and the same stands disposed of, accordingly.Writ Petition Allowed. *******