JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Plaintiff Shahbuddin has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 02.09.2011 Annexure P-3 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad thereby dismissing application Annexure P-2 moved by plaintiff-petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, ‘CPC’) for impleading Ramotar and Aiman (respondents No.3 and 4 herein) as party to the suit which has been instituted by plaintiff-petitioner against respondents No.1 and 2 as defendants vide plaint Annexure P-1. 2. The plaintiff alleged in his application Annexure P-2 that he has now learnt that Aiman-respondent No.4, who is wife of defendant-respondent No.2 Kamruddin, had obtained lease hold rights of the suit land and this fact was not in the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner earlier. It was also alleged that now defendant No.2 and his wife Aiman have, during pendency of the suit, sold ownership rights and lease hold rights in the suit land to respondent No.3-Ramotar on 09.05.2011. In these circumstances, impleadment of respondents No.3 and 4 as party to the suit was claimed. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2/defendants stood proceeded ex parte in the suit. 4. Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-3 dismissed the plaintiff’s application Annexure P-2. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition. 5. In spite of last opportunity, none has appeared for the respondents. Consequently I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.4 is necessary party to the suit in view of lease hold rights allegedly obtained by her. It was submitted that plaintiff was not aware of the said lease hold rights earlier. It was also contended that respondent No.3 is also necessary party to the suit because he has purchased ownership rights as well as lease hold rights of the suit land from respondents No.2 and 4 respectively during pendency of the suit. 7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. 8. Learned trial Court observed in the impugned order that alienation in favour of respondent No.3 during pendency of the suit is hit by doctrine of lis pendens and, therefore, respondent No.3 is not necessary party to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. 8. Learned trial Court observed in the impugned order that alienation in favour of respondent No.3 during pendency of the suit is hit by doctrine of lis pendens and, therefore, respondent No.3 is not necessary party to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. However, trial Court has not made any observation as to why respondent No.4 should not be impleaded as party to the suit. On the contrary, since there was some lease deed in favour of respondent No.4 pertaining to the suit land (alleged to be fictitious lease deed by the plaintiff), respondent No.4 is necessary party to the suit. She is none else but wife of respondent No.2 who is already party to the suit as defendant No.2. As regards respondent No.3, he may not be necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC but he could be allowed to be impleaded as party to the suit under Order 22 rule 10 CPC having purchased the suit land including lease hold rights during pendency of the suit. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I find that respondents No.3 and 4 are required to be impleaded as party to the suit. In their absence, the suit cannot be adjudicated upon effectively and completely. Impugned order of the trial Court suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-3 passed by the trial Court is set aside. Application Annexure P-2 moved by plaintiff-petitioner is allowed and Ramotar and Aiman respondents No.3 and 4 herein are ordered to be impleaded as party to the suit as defendants No.3 and 4. ---------0.B.S.0------------