ORDER 4.1.2013 – Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner & Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties. 2. In this Writ Petition the Petitioner assails the Order Dated 18.8.2012 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Khurda, in C.S. No. 148/2011 rejecting her application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code” for brevity) 3. Opp. Party No.3, i.e. the Plaintiff in the suit has filed the suit for declaration of his title & other reliefs against Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2 alleging that the sale deed executed on 13.4.2011 by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 is void inoperative & not binding against the Plaintiff. In that suit the present Petitioner filed an application as an intervener to be impleaded as a Defendant the specific case of the Petitioner is that “A” schedule land was the absolute property of Defendant No.1, who happens to be her father. He purchased the said land form one Bholanath Pattnaik on 18.6.1993. Defendant No.1 in turn to meet his pressing needs sold the land in question to the Petitioner on 19.1.2007 & delivered possession thereof. While in possession of the suit land in her right, title & interest the Petitioner sold the suit land to Defendant No.2 for lawful consideration on 10.5.2011 & deliver possession thereof. She alleges that the Plaintiff & Defendant No.1 has colluded & tried to deprive Defendant No.2 from the enjoyment of the schedule land. The Petitioner being the vendor of Defendant No.2 has a contractual liability to ensure that her vendee shall enjoy the property without any obstruction. 4. It is further submitted by the Petitioner that in absence of the Petitioner if the suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff then Defendant No.2 shall definitely drag the Petitioner to the Court of law for return of the sale price. Therefore, she submitted that her presence is not only required to avoid multiplicity of proceeding but also for complete adjudication of the suit. 5. On the contrary, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has filed the written objection & submitted that the interest of the Petitioner is no way involved in the suit & she is not going to be affected if the suit, will be disposed of in her absence. 5. On the contrary, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has filed the written objection & submitted that the interest of the Petitioner is no way involved in the suit & she is not going to be affected if the suit, will be disposed of in her absence. He also objected the contention of the Petitioner that the Plaintiff has colluded with defendant No.1 & prayed to reject the petition. 6. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Khurda has held that avoidance of multiplicity of litigation could not be the sole criteria for deciding the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code in deciding the application he further held that under the aforesaid Rule, the Court is primarily connected with the question whether presence of the party proposed to be impleaded would advance complete & satisfactory adjudication to the subject matter in controversy. 7. The petitioner pleads that the land in question was sold in her favour by her father who sold to Defendant No.2. It is further brought to the notice of the Court that Defendant No.1 had sold the suit land again on 31.4.2011 to Defendant No.2. In that view of the matter the second sale executed by Defendant No.1 is void as Defendant No.1 did not have the title to convey in favour of Defendant No.2 on 31.4.2011 as the said land was already sold in favour of his daughter on 1.9.2007. When the validity of the sale deed dated 31.4.2011 is in question then the effect of the earlier sale & connivance of the title in favour of the present Petitioner has also imparted bearing on the issue in question. Therefore, in order to complete adjudication of the dispute in question the Petitioner required to be heard & she is not only a proper party but also a necessary party in this connection Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the reported case of VIDUR IMPEX & TRADERS PVT. LTD & OTHERS VERSUS TOSH APARTMENT PVT. LTD. & OTHERS (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 384 wherein the Supreme Court has summarized the broad principles which should govern disposal of the application for impleadment of a party. It is appropriate to quote the same. LTD & OTHERS VERSUS TOSH APARTMENT PVT. LTD. & OTHERS (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 384 wherein the Supreme Court has summarized the broad principles which should govern disposal of the application for impleadment of a party. It is appropriate to quote the same. “The Court can, at any stage of he proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as Plaintiff or Defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective & complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. A necessary part is the person who ought to be joined as Party to the suit & in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively & properly adjudicate upon all matters & issues, though e may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be proper or necessary party, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the Plaintiff. In a suit for specific performance, the Court can order impleadement of a purchaser whose conduct is above board & who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or his beneficiary of a clandestine transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the Court or the application is unduty delayed then the Court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment.” From the aforesaid, it is clear that the Court can at any stage of proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as Plaintiff or Defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective & complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. As this Court has already come to the conclusion that the presence of the present. Petitioner is necessary before the Court for effective & complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. This Court comes to the conclusion that the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. As this Court has already come to the conclusion that the presence of the present. Petitioner is necessary before the Court for effective & complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. This Court comes to the conclusion that the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) has committed error on record by rejecting the application filed by the present Petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter the Writ Petition succeeds, the order Dated 18.8.2012 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Khurda, in C.S. No. 148/2011 is quashed & the petition for impleading herself as Defendant in the suit is allowed. It is directed that the present Petitioner shall be added as Defendant No.3 in the suit. The amendment shall be carried out by the Office of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Khurda & she should be given a reasonable Opportunity of filing written statement & then additional issues, If required be framed & trial should proceed thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition is disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the Learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Khurda on 30.1.2013. No Costs.