JUDGMENT : B.N. KARIA, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Shivani Trivedi waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No. 3. 2. By preferring this petition, petitioner has requested to quash and set aside the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Special Civil Suit No. 171 of 2006. 3. Short facts of the present case may be referred as under: The plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 by forging the power of attorney of the plaintiff as per the contention made in the plaint. As per further contention of the plaintiff in the year 2018, entire evidence was over and even arguments were also heard but anyhow judgment was not delivered and the third party namely Rameshbhai Jesangbhai Chaudhary made an application to join him as a necessary party to the court proceedings. Reply was filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff vide Exh.104 by contesting the said application. The trial court was pleased to pass an order below Exh.101 allowing the third party to be joined under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. Hence this petition. 4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the respondent. 5. It is submitted by learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the proposed respondent No. 3 in his application has made the averments that he has purchased the suit property from Pasabhai Virchandbhai Prajapati on 27.02.2008 and therefore, he is the owner of the suit property and was in possession. It was further contended in the application that suit was preferred by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in collusion as he was bona-fide purchaser of the suit property and therefore, he is necessary and proper party, he requested to permit him to join as defendant No. 3 in the suit. It is submitted that suit was pending since 2006 and there was lis pendens registered by the plaintiff and therefore, the proposed party cannot be said to be a bona-fide purchaser of the suit property. It is further submitted that third party applicant would be a subject to embargo of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is submitted that suit was pending since 2006 and there was lis pendens registered by the plaintiff and therefore, the proposed party cannot be said to be a bona-fide purchaser of the suit property. It is further submitted that third party applicant would be a subject to embargo of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. That however suit was pending since 2006, third party did not file any application to join him as a necessary party in the suit proceedings. It is further submitted that when the suit was posted for judgment, the application below Exh.101 was filed by the third party, as proposed defendant to begun the suit initiation. That third party has no concern with the prayer made by the plaintiff against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. That no relief was claimed against the third party in this suit and his presence was not necessary in deciding the suit controversy. That with mala-fide intention below Exh.101 was filed by the third party i.e. proposed defendant with a view to prolong the trial unnecessarily. That trial court has completely ignored Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. and beyond the scope and limit impugned order is passed. It is further submitted that presence of the third party was not necessary for effective hearing of the suit transaction. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the petitioner to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the trial court below Exh.101. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments reported in 1992 (0) GLHEL-SC 23585, 2016 (0) AIJEL-SC 60241 and 2003 (0) GLHEL-SC 3681. 6. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent has supported the conclusion and findings arrived at by the trial court while allowing the application Exh.101 permitting the proposed respondent as a party. It is further submitted that the suit property was purchased by the proposed defendant by registered sale-deed dated 27.02.2008 from Pasabhai Virchandbhai Prajapati and he was in possession having interest, and therefore, he was necessary party being a owner. It is further submitted that proposed defendant was not aware with the facts of filing of the suit by the plaintiff against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It is further submitted that proposed defendant was not aware with the facts of filing of the suit by the plaintiff against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. When second suit was filed in the year2012 by the plaintiff against the proposed defendant, for the first time he came to know about the present suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Hence application below Exh.101 was filed by him with a request to permit him to join as a party as he was necessary party. It is further submitted that the proposed defendant has a right, title and interest in the suit property and he is proper and necessary party as he has interest in the subject matter of the litigation and his presence would be necessary for proper adjudication effectively upon and determine the cause of action in the suit. That no illegality or error is committed by the trial court in permitting the proposed respondent in the suit as a defendant. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the respondent to dismiss the present petition. In support of her arguments, she has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad reported in AIR 2016 All. 15 and AIR 1999 SC 976 . 7. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the respondent and having gone through the documents produced on record, it appears that original plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 27.03.2006 executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of the respondent No. 1 by forging the power of attorney of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that evidence of the parties was over and final arguments was also heard before the court below. It is not in dispute that Civil Suit No. 171 of 2006 was pending for pronouncement of judgment but however, it was not pronounced. Meanwhile the proposed defendant namely Rameshbhai Jesangbhai Chaudhary filed an application below Exh.101 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and requested to join him as the defendant No. 3 in the suit proceedings. As per the contention raised in the application below Exh.101, the suit was filed with collusion of the defendant by the plaintiff. Meanwhile the proposed defendant namely Rameshbhai Jesangbhai Chaudhary filed an application below Exh.101 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and requested to join him as the defendant No. 3 in the suit proceedings. As per the contention raised in the application below Exh.101, the suit was filed with collusion of the defendant by the plaintiff. It further appears that plaintiff challenged the registered sale deed executed on 27.03.2006 in favour of the defendant No. 1 by the defendant No. 2. 8. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 transferred the suit property by registered sale deed dated 01.07.2006 in favour of Pasabhai Virchandbhai Prajapati, Village Ambaliysan, District Gandhinagar. The said party namely Pasabhai Virchandbhai Prajapati, transferred the suit property to the proposed defendant by registered sale deed dated 27.02.2008. As per the contention raised by the proposed defendant in his application Exh.101, he is the bona-fide purchaser and was enjoying the possession of the suit property being an owner. As he was necessary party for adjudication of the suit, he requested to permit him to join as party defendant No. 3. Observation made by the court below in the order below Exh.101 that plaintiff has suppressed the facts of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the proposed defendant marked as 103/2 appears to be not correct. The suit was filed on 15th December, 2006 and registered sale deed was executed in favour of the proposed defendant by Pasabhai Virchandbhai Prajapati on 27.02.2008. The plaintiff could not aware of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the proposed defendant on 27.02.2008 while filing the suit before the Court below on 15.12.2006. Further it appears that another Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff against the proposed defendant, which was also pending for adjudication. Entire evidence was over in Special Civil Suit No. 171 of 2006 in the year 2018 and even arguments are also heard by the court below. The proposed defendant was aware with the facts that another Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff against him and had also meeting with the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, however, he was silent till the evidence was over as well as the arguments were heard by the court. The proposed defendant was aware with the facts that another Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff against him and had also meeting with the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, however, he was silent till the evidence was over as well as the arguments were heard by the court. At the fag end pronouncement of the judgment of the suit, proposed defendant filed an application Exh.101 to permit him as defendant No. 3 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. 9. While deciding the question of joining a person in a suit, he must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved, that would only make him a necessary witness. It is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some question involved and has thought of relevant arguments to advance. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. The line has been drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct interest or the legal interest and commercial interest. 10. For the purpose of granting relief sought by the proposed defendant by referring the sale deed executed in his favour creating rights in the suit property, it is not necessary for the court to consider that answer. If that it show, the presence of the proposed party cannot be considered as necessary for the purpose of enabling the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle for the questions involved in the suit. 11. Proposed party has purchased the suit property despite of the fact that he was within knowledge of fact that present suit is pending since 2006 and their lis pendens registered by the plaintiff, therefore, he cannot be said to be a bona-fide purchaser of the suit property. The proposed party would be a subject to the embargo of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the plaint, no relief was claimed by the plaintiff against the proposed party. The proposed party would be a subject to the embargo of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the plaint, no relief was claimed by the plaintiff against the proposed party. 12. The similar question was decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bibi Zubaida Khatton vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb, 2003 (0) GLHEL-SC 3681 relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner. As per the contents of the aforesaid citation, an application was submitted under Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for impleadment of transferee pendente lite as a co plaintiff in one suit and defendant in the other suit, an application was also made for amendment of the pleading consequent to her proposed joinder as a party in the two suits. Trial court rejected the applications observing that the property having been purchased during the pendency of this suit. The decree passed shall bind the transferee pendente lite. Hon'ble Apex Court held that the petitioner being a transferee pendente lite without leave of the court can not seek impleadment as a party in the suits which are long pending. The order of the trial court rejecting the application on the ground that prima-facie, the action of alienation did not appear to be bona-fide and alienation obviously would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 13. In another judgment, in the case of Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, 2016 (0) AIJEL-SC 60241, it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is as under: “15. It is a settled principle of law, which does not need any authority to support the principle, that the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be forced to add any person as party to his suit unless it is held keeping in view the pleadings and the relief claimed therein that a person sought to be added as party is a necessary party and without his presence neither the suit can proceed and nor the relief can be granted. It is only then such person can be allowed to become party, else the suit will have to be dismissed for non-impleadment of such necessary party. Such does not appear to be a case here.” 14. It is only then such person can be allowed to become party, else the suit will have to be dismissed for non-impleadment of such necessary party. Such does not appear to be a case here.” 14. In the case of Ram Naresh vs. Additional District Judge and Others, AIR 2016 All. 15 , relied upon by learned advocate for the respondent, it was held that subsequent transferee can be impleaded as party in the suit where purchaser is seeking enforcement of an agreement for sale and has come up for specific performance though it is wholly unnecessary for him to challenge conveyance/sale deed executed by vendor during pendency of the suit in favour of the party proposed to be brought on record in the suit. 15. In the cited case, application preferred by the plaintiff under 6 Rule 17 of CPC for seeking impleadment of three persons namely Mr. Vijay Pratap, Mr. Ram Pravesh and Mr. Ajay, as defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and for addition of certain paragraphs in the plaint, bringing on record subsequent facts of transfer of property in dispute by defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 vide sale deed dated 10.12.1999 was rejected. 16. Hon'ble High Court has observed that under order 22, Rule 10, C.P.C. Legislature has intended that proceedings would continue by or against the original party, although he ceased to have any interest in the subject matter of the dispute, despite the failure to apply for leave, to continue by or against the person upon whom the interest has developed, for bringing him on record. 17. Here, in the instant case admittedly, another Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2012 is filed by the plaintiff before the Civil Court against the proposed defendant in connection with the suit property, which is pending for adjudication. 18. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Nawab John vs. V.N. Subramaniyam, 2012 (2) GLH 693 has observed that when the pendente lite purchaser seeks to impleadment himself as a party-defendant to the suit, such application should be liberally considered. In the cited case, suit property was purchased by the proposed party from the defendant. In the present case, the suit property was never purchased by the proposed party from the defendant in the suit. 19. In the cited case, suit property was purchased by the proposed party from the defendant. In the present case, the suit property was never purchased by the proposed party from the defendant in the suit. 19. Another suit was also filed by the plaintiff in respect of the suit property against the proposed defendant in respect of the suit property, which was also pending for adjudication. The judgment relied upon by learned advocate for the proposed defendant, considering the facts of the present case, would not be helpful to the proposed defendant. 20. There is no absolute rule that transferee pendente lite without leave of the court should, in all cases, be allowed to join and contest the pending suits. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act envisaged that “During the pendency in any court having authority within the limits of India.....of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under the decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose.” 21. The Court below has failed to consider that addition of the proposed defendant would result into causing serious prejudice to the plaintiff and the substitution or the addition of a new cause of action would only widen the issue which requires to be adjudicated in the suit. 22. In addition to that, another Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2012 for the suit property was also filed by the plaintiff against the proposed defendant, which is also pending. Permitting proposed defendant for the joining of the party would embarrass the plaintiff in the issues not germane to the suit would require to be raised. The mere fact that fresh litigation can be avoided is no ground to invoke the power under the rule in such of cases. 23. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the court below is wrong in concluding that the proposed defendant is a necessary or proper party to be added as defendant No. 3 in the suit instituted by the plaintiff by allowing the application below Exh.101. 24. 23. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the court below is wrong in concluding that the proposed defendant is a necessary or proper party to be added as defendant No. 3 in the suit instituted by the plaintiff by allowing the application below Exh.101. 24. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed by quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Special Civil Suit No. 171 of 2006. 25. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.