JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Shyam Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dharm Pal Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rakesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 10.11.2020, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehpur, in Civil Suit No. 934 of 2001 (Jabbaru Nisha vs. Puttan and others) and order dated 03.12.2020, passed by District Judge, Fatehpur, in Misc. Case No. 80 of 2020 (Puttan and others vs. Abhishek Shukla and others). 3. Brief facts of the case is that one Jabbaru Nisha had filed a suit for permanent injunction which was registered as Original Suit No. 934 of 2001. The petitioners who were defendants in the suit had put in appearance before the court below and filed their written statement denying the plaint allegations and they have also filed their counter claim for restraining the plaintiff not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the defendants over the land in dispute. 4. During the pendecy of the aforesaid suit, Jabbaru Nisha died and no substitution was filed by any of the legal heirs of Jabbaru Nisha and the suit was dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2012 and counter claim filed by defendants/petitioners was pending. During the pendency of counter-claim/cross-objection of the defendants/petitioners, the respondents no. 1 and 2 had moved an application on 06.10.2020 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. which is paper no. 556-Ga(2) for their impleadment. 5. It is pleaded in the impleadment application that Jabbaru Nisha, plaintiff had sold Arazi No. 2501 area 0.2429 situated at Kasba Fatehpur Dakshani, District Fatehpur to one Mohd. Riaz through registered sale deed on 29.12.2006. Respondents no. 1 and 2 had purchased the aforesaid land from Mohd. Riaz through registered sale deed on 13.11.2019 and they became owner and in possession over the disputed land. It is further pleaded that during the pendency of mutation proceedings, the defendants/petitioners had filed objection before Niab Tehsildar only then, they knew about the pendency of Original Suit No. 934 of 2001. It is pleaded that since the land in dispute was purchased by the applicants and they are in possession over the same, as such, they are necessary party to be impleaded in the suit. 6. It is pleaded that since the land in dispute was purchased by the applicants and they are in possession over the same, as such, they are necessary party to be impleaded in the suit. 6. The defendants/petitioners also filed objection to the impleadement application on 17.10.2020. It is stated in the objection by the defendants/petitioners that the impleadment application is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the case is pending for such a long time and only to delay the proceedings, the present impleadment application has been filed by the applicants. It is further pleaded that the applicants are not the bona-fide purchaser of the land. 7. The learned trial court after considering the objections of the petitioners had allowed the application for impleadement filed by respondents no. 1 and 2 vide order dated 10.11.2020. The learned trial court has recorded the finding that since the disputed land was purchased by applicants (respondents no. 1 and 2) through registered sale deed dated 13.11.2019 and as such, they are necessary parties and the impleadment application on their behalf is liable to be allowed for proper adjudication of the case. 8. Being aggrieved with the order dated 10.11.2020, the petitioners had filed civil revision which was also dismissed by the learned revisional court vide judgment and order dated 03.12.2020. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the orders dated 10.11.2020 and 03.12.2020. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the courts below had erred in passing the impugned orders as the respondents no. 1 and 2 are not necessary parties to be impleaded. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit filed by Jabbaru Nisha was dismissed in default on 07.11.2012 and the applicants (respondents no. 1 and 2) are not necessary parties to be impleaded in the counter-claim/cross-objection filed by petitioners in Original Suit No. 934 of 2001. It is submitted that the impleadment application has been filed only to delay the disposal of counter-claim/cross-objection filed by petitioners and both the courts below had erred in allowing the impleadment application of contesting respondents no. 1 and 2. 10. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 has submitted that respondents no. 1 and 2. 10. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 has submitted that respondents no. 1 and 2 are necessary parties to be impleaded in the counter-claim/cross-objection filed by petitioners as they had already purchased the disputed land from Mohd. Riaz through a registered sale deed dated 13.11.2019. It is further submitted that the respondents no. 1 and 2 had no knowledge about the pendency of Original Suit No. 934 of 2001 as well as counter claim and when they applied for mutation after purchasing the land through registered sale deed dated 13.11.2019, the petitioners had filed objection in the mutation proceeding and only then they knew about the pendency of cross-objection and they immediately inspected the record and moved impleadment application. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate that the delay was caused by the petitioners in disposal of counter-claim, by moving several amendment applications in their counter-claim/cross-objection. Lastly, it is submitted that since, respondents no. 1 and 2 had purchased the disputed land through registered sale deed and are in possession over the land in dispute, they are necessary parties to be impleaded in counter-claim/cross-objection filed in Original Suit No. 934 of 2001 and both the courts below have rightly passed the order in favour of respondents no. 1 and 2 for their impleadment. 11. Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Respondents no. 1 and 2 had filed impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. with the specific allegation that Jabbaru Nisha had already sold Arazi No. 2501 area 0.2429 to one Mohd. Riaz through registered sale deed dated 29.12.2006 and Mohd. Riaz had sold the aforesaid land through registered sale deed on 13.11.2019 in favour of respondents no. 1 and 2. Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. provides that the court at any stage of the proceeding, impleads any party either upon application or without any application to implead as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, in order to proper adjudication of the case. 1 and 2. Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. provides that the court at any stage of the proceeding, impleads any party either upon application or without any application to implead as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, in order to proper adjudication of the case. Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. reads as under :- "Court may strike out or add parties :-The Court may at any state of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added." 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and others vs. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and others reported in (2012) 8 S.C.C. 384 had laid down the principle regarding impleadment of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. The relevant paragraph no. 41 reads as under :- "41. Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are: 41.1. The Court can, at any stage of the 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 and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 41.2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court. 41.3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. 41.4. 41.3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. 41.4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the plaintiff. 41.5. In a suit for specific performance, the Court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. 41.6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the Court or the application is unduly delayed then the Court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment." 14. From the pleadings of parties as well as evidence and materials which are available on record, it is apparent that the respondents no. 1 and 2 had purchased the land through registered sale deed on 13.11.2019 and as such, they are necessary parties to be impleaded in the proceedings for proper adjudication of the case. The learned trial court after considering the material which are available on record had allowed the application filed by respondents no. 1 and 2 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. and the revision preferred by petitioners against the order of impleadment was also dismissed. 15. Both the courts below had recorded the finding on the basis of evidence and materials, which are available on record, that the respondents no. 1 and 2 are necessary parties for proper adjudication of the case. 16. No ground for interference is made out. The petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 18. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.