V. Nath, J. – Heard Mr. Sukumar Sinha, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ applications. 2. The interlocutory applications (I.A. No. 70 of 2013 filed in C.W.J.C. No. 3830 of 2012 and I.A. No. 71 of 2013 filed in C.W.J.C. No. 3735 of 2012) are allowed and the service of notices on respondent nos. 1 and 2 are accepted as valid. 3. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents even after the service of notice to contest the matter. 4. Partition Suit No. 173 of 2005 has been filed seeking partition of the suit properties. In that suit, the defendant nos. 2 to 28 were parties. Subsequently, the defendant no. 26 Mukesh Kumar Choudhary (Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3735 of 2012) purchased the part of the suit property by registered sale deed dated 27.07.2005 along with his brother Pappu Kumar Choudhary @ Pappu Kumar from the defendant no. 1 Sujeet Kumar (respondent in both the writ applications). Subsequently, Pappu Kumar Choudhary @ Pappu Kumar (Petitioner in C.W.J.C.3830 of 2012) filed a petition on 11.05.2009 purporting to be under Order I Rule 10 for impleading him as party-defendant in the suit on the basis that he has purchased the part of the suit property from the defendant no. 1 during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs also filed the petition on 14.07.2008 under Order VI Rule 17 praying for deleting the name of defendant nos. 2 to 28 from the plaint. 5. By the order dated 14.05.2009, the court below has allowed the prayer of the plaintiffs for deleting the names of defendant nos. 2 to 28 from the plaint. This order has been under assail in C.W.J.C. No. 3735 of 2012 filed by Mukesh Kumar Choudhary, who was defendant no. 26 in the suit. The petition dated 11.05.2009 has also been rejected by the court below by the order dated 10.06.2009 and the said order is under assail in C.W.J.C. No. 3830 of 2012 by Pappu Kumar Choudhary @ Pappu Kumar, as petitioner. In view of identical issues of facts and law, both the writ applications have been directed to be heard together. 6. As stated above, there is no denial to the averments made in the writ petition as nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest the prayer. 7. In view of identical issues of facts and law, both the writ applications have been directed to be heard together. 6. As stated above, there is no denial to the averments made in the writ petition as nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest the prayer. 7. From perusal of the records and after considering the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing in both the writ applications on behalf of the petitioners, it is limpid that the suit has been filed for partition of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. It is also transparent that the defendant nos. 2 to 28 were parties in the suit initially. It is also apparent that the defendant no. 26 Mukesh Kumar Choudhary along with his brother Pappu Kumar Choudhary @ Pappu Kumar have purchased the part of the suit property from defendant no. 1, Sujeet Kumar by registered sale deed dated 27.07.2005. Thus, after purchasing the interest of the defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 26, Mukesh Kumar Choudhary and his brother, Pappu Kumar Choudhary @ Pappu Kumar have acquired the status of co-sharers in the suit property. 8. It is well settled by now that even a purchaser pendente lite is entitled to be made a party in the suit when there is apprehension that his interest will not be protected by the vendor. Mr. Sinha, the learned senior counsel has also relied on a decision in the case of Dhanalakshmi and Ors. vs. P. Mohan and Ors. ( AIR 2007 SC 1062 ) in support of this principle. The reasonings assigned by the learned court below in allowing the prayer of the plaintiff for deleting the names of defendant nos. 2 to 28 and for rejection of the prayer of Pappu Kumar Choudhary @ Pappu Kumar to be impleaded as party appears to be mainly on the basis that the plaintiff is dominus litis and no person can be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. The other factor which appears to have prevailed with the learned court below is that the purchase by defendant no. 26 and Pappu Kumar Choudhary by registered sale deed, has been pendente lite, and, therefore, in view of Section 52 of the T.P. Act they are not entitled to claim their addition as parties in the suit. 9. The other factor which appears to have prevailed with the learned court below is that the purchase by defendant no. 26 and Pappu Kumar Choudhary by registered sale deed, has been pendente lite, and, therefore, in view of Section 52 of the T.P. Act they are not entitled to claim their addition as parties in the suit. 9. The aforesaid reasonings of the learned court below cannot be sustained in law inasmuch as once the defendant no. 1 has sold the part of the suit property by registered sale deed in favour of defendant no. 26 along with Pappu Kumar Choudhary @ Pappu Kumar then simply denial of the execution of the sale deed by the defendant no. 1 could not be sufficient to take away the legal effect of a registered sale deed. Even though the defendant no. 1 denies the execution of the sale deed, the said issue has to be determined in the suit and the purchasers of the suit property cannot be driven to file another suit which will result only in multiplicity of the proceedings. Even otherwise also whenever the status of a defendant co-sharer in a suit of partition is contested, it has to be determined in the same suit and the defendant cannot be directed to get his rights as a co-shares declared in the suit property through another suit. 10. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 10.06.2009 and order dated 14.05.2009 passed in Partition Suit No. 173 of 2005 so far those orders relate to the writ petitioners in both the writ applications i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 3830/2012 and C.W.J.C. No.3735/2012. 11. In result, the defendant no. 26 shall remain as party defendant in the suit and the writ petitioner Pappu Kumar Choudhary @ Pappu Kumar shall be impleaded as defendant in the suit. 12. Both the writ applications are, accordingly, allowed with aforesaid directions.