JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. 2. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner against an order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Halvad below Exh. 25 in Special Civil Suit No. 5 of 2018. By the said application, the petitioner – original plaintiff had sought to join the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 herein as party defendant Nos. 9 and 10 in the said suit, which came to be rejected vide impugned order. 3. Facts in nutshell of the case on hand are that on 27.09.1999, the respondent Nos. 1, 9 and 10 executed an Agreement to Sell qua the suit property in favour of the petitioner and handed over the possession as well as issued the acknowledgment receipt of sale consideration. On the same date, the said respondents also executed a irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of one Mansukhbhai Savjibhai Patel, who is the father-in-law of the petitioner. After conversion of the said land into the old tenure land, on 07.04.2016, the said respondents also executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein. However, subsequently, on 10.05.2016, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, allegedly, in connivance with the respondent Nos. 5 to 8, executed a sale deed qua the very same property in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 to 8. Accordingly, the petitioners preferred the captioned suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed in which application Exh. 5 came to be allowed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 preferred Appeal from Order No. 333 of 2016, which came to be allowed in part by way of a judgment and order dated 22.03.2017 and the parties to the suit were restrained from transferring or creating any right, title or interest over the disputed property till final disposal of the suit. The said judgment and order came to be challenged before the Apex Court, in which, by an order dated 01.05.2017, the Apex Court disposed of the said SLP (C) Nos. 12804-12805/2017 with a direction to the trial Court to decide the suit within one year. Pending application, the petitioner – plaintiff filed an application under O.1 R.10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the CPC) for joining party, to join the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 herein as party defendant Nos. 12804-12805/2017 with a direction to the trial Court to decide the suit within one year. Pending application, the petitioner – plaintiff filed an application under O.1 R.10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the CPC) for joining party, to join the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 herein as party defendant Nos. 9 and 10 in the pending suit, which came to be rejected by impugned order dated 03.10.2019 and hence, the grieved petitioner is before this Court with this petition. 4. Heard Shri Jal S. Unwalla, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mr. Sandeep R. Limbani, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Gaurav Chudasama, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and Mr. Vishal C. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 9 and 10. Though served, as refused, nobody has put in appearance qua respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 4.1 The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the trial Court suffers material illegality and perversity inasmuch as, the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the proposed defendant Nos. 9 and 10 are the necessary party so as to decide the real issue involved in the suit. He submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the provisions of O.1 R.10 of the CPC in letter and spirit. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Nos. 1, 9 and 10 jointly executed an Agreement to Sell in favour of the petitioner herein and thereafter, the sale deed and also handed over the possession of the suit property. Further, acknowledgment of receipt of sale consideration is also issued on behalf of the said respondents, and therefore also, it is quite clear that the said respondents are the necessary party in the suit, however, the learned trial Judge has failed to take into consideration the said aspect of the matter and thereby, has erred in rejecting the application in question. 4.2 The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have taken into consideration the principle of dominus litis and the petitioner being the plaintiff, is the master of suit and accordingly, he is entitled to join such defendants in the suit in question. 4.2 The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have taken into consideration the principle of dominus litis and the petitioner being the plaintiff, is the master of suit and accordingly, he is entitled to join such defendants in the suit in question. 4.3 The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no reasons, whatsoever, have been assigned by the learned trial Judge in support of the conclusion arrived at by him in rejecting the said application and the impugned order is a non-speaking order. 4.4 Thus, making such submissions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner urged to allow the present petition by setting aside the impugned order and to join the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 herein in the pending suit. 5. As against this, learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Chudasama for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8, while heavily resisting this petition, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper, suffers from no vices. He submitted that the suit is of 2016 and the application in question is filed after about two years i.e. in the year 2018 and therefore, also, the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the said application for joining party. He submitted had there been the case as projected by the petitioner, the petitioner would have joined such persons while preferring the suit only and not at a belated stage. 5.1 The learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 further submitted that the Apex Court, by virtue of the aforesaid order dated 01.05.2017, has directed to decide the suit in question within one year, although, the petitioner moved such an application only with a view to procrastinate the matter, without any substance. The learned advocate submitted that the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the application Exh. 25 stating that there is no ground and/or any averments against the so-called proposed defendant Nos. 9 and 10 (respondent Nos. 9 and 10 herein). 5.2 The learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 submitted that the petitioner himself is saying that the sale deed is pending for registration but the seller in the same is only Bhalabhai i.e. the respondent No. 1 herein and therefore also, the proposed respondents are not required to be joined and/or are necessary party. 5.3 Further, the proposed defendant Nos. 5 to 8 submitted that the petitioner himself is saying that the sale deed is pending for registration but the seller in the same is only Bhalabhai i.e. the respondent No. 1 herein and therefore also, the proposed respondents are not required to be joined and/or are necessary party. 5.3 Further, the proposed defendant Nos. 9 and 10 have never challenged the sale deed executed by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 qua the suit property. He submitted that as proposed parties have never challenged the entry which was mutated in favour of the respondent No. 1, now, after almost 15 years, they would get chance to participate in the suit if permitted to be joined and therefore, when the suit is barred by limitation if the sale deed is not challenged within three years, now after this many years, they cannot be directly joined as party defendants in the suit. 5.4 Thus, making above submissions, it is urged that this writ petition being devoid of any merits, may be rejected. 5.5 In support, the learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Hari Mohan Sharma and Another v. Charanjeet Singh Rekhi and Others, (2019) 12 SCC 412 . 6. Learned advocate Mr. Vishal C. Mehta for the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 have joined with the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 7. Regarding being had to the submissions made and considering the averments made in the petition so also, considering the material available on record, it appears that petitioner’s application for joining party came to be rejected by the learned trial Judge by way of impugned order dated 03.10.2019 passed below application Exh. 25. It is the case of the petitioner that a sale deed came to be executed by the respondent Nos. 1, 9 and 10 in her favour, however, subsequently, another sale deed came to be executed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 to 8, for the very same suit property, which is stated to have been collusive and hence, the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of subsequent sale deed in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 to 8. 1 to 4 in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 to 8, for the very same suit property, which is stated to have been collusive and hence, the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of subsequent sale deed in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 to 8. In the said suit, initially, the petitioner did not join the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 as party defendants, however, subsequently, the petitioner came with an application to praying for to join respondent Nos. 9 and 10 as party respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in the suit as they being necessary party. 7.1 The law on the subject is well settled. A “necessary party” is one without whom no order can be made effectively and a “proper party” is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. Further, a “necessary party” is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. The “proper party” is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. 7.2 In the decision Manjulaben D/o. Jagjivanbhai Lallubhai and Wd/o. Kanaiyalal Morardas v. Dakshaben D/o. Mansukhbhai Jagjivanbhai and Wd/o. Mukesh Patel and Others, 2019 eGLR_HC 10006337, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 20379 of 2016 dated 06.12.2019, following observations have been made: “17. In the case of Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. (Supra), it was observed that: “The broad principles for impleading of parties are as under: “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. 2. 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. 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 Court. 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. 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. 5. In a suit for specific performance, the Court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is aboveboard, and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. 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”. 7.3 In the said background, if the prayers made in the suit filed by the petitioner are referred to, the petitioner has, inter alia, sought declaration to the effect declaring the sale deed dated 07.04.2016 executed in favour of the petitioner by the respondent Nos. 1, 9 and 10 to be legal and valid. 7.4 The aforesaid position of law vis-a-vis the facts of the case and the prayer/s made in the suit if are considered together, it is the case of the petitioner that a sale deed came to be executed by the respondent Nos. 1, 9 and 10 in her favour and it is this sale deed, which is sought to be declared as legal and valid. Hence, as referred herein above, the respondent Nos. 1, 9 and 10 in her favour and it is this sale deed, which is sought to be declared as legal and valid. Hence, as referred herein above, the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 would be the necessary party as in their absence, no effective decree could be passed by the Court. The learned trial Judge appears to have failed to take into consideration such a material aspect of the matter. Further, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that, no reasons have been assigned by the learned trial Judge for passing such an order and it is only in one line that it is mentioned that no sufficient cause has been shown by the plaintiff (petitioner) for joining party. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice would meet if this petition petition is allowed and the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 be permitted to be joined as party defendants in the suit in question, more particularly, with a view to do the substantial justice and to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. 7.5 The learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Hari Mohan Sharma and Another (supra). There cannot be any dispute with regard to the ratio laid therein, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the same would be of no avail to the learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 as in the said case, the issue was with regard to the mistaken identity. 8. In the aforesaid backdrop, this petition succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Halvad below Exh. 25 in Special Civil Suit No. 5 of 2018 is set aside. The petitioner – plaintiff is permitted to join respondent Nos. 9 and 10 herein as party defendant Nos. 9 and 10 in the said suit. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.