JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI , J. 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Avilash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 8 and Mr. Madhav Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 9 to 11. 2. At the outset, Mr. Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner restricts this petition for the petitioner under Order-I Rule 10 CPC. and he is not pressing the petition under Order-VI Rule-17 of the CPC, which was also the subject matter of the impugned order. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Ranchi, in Original Suit No. 406 of 2017, wherein the Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 566 of 2024, filed by the petitioner under Order-I Rule-10 of the CPC for impleading the persons, who have purchased the land in question by the registered sale deeds as defendant Nos. 6 to 11 (proposed defendants 6 to 12) has been rejected by the learned court. 4. Mr. Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that plaintiff/petitioner instituted a partition suit for a preliminary decree for partition and separation of the plaintiff 1/4 th share in the suit property as described in the Schedule A and B of the plaint by appointment of a survey knowing Advocate Commissioner by carving out his share. He submits that the said suit was admitted and summons have been issued, pursuant to that the defendants have appeared, who happened to be own brothers. He further submits that the mother has also appeared in that suit, however, subsequently, she has left for her heavenly abode. He submits that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have filed an application dated 18.12.2019 praying therein to accept the certified copy of the sale deeds and marked as exhibits. He then submits that by the sale deeds, the persons purchased the land of the schedule property and they have been tried to be made proposed defendants, which has been rejected by the learned court. 1 to 4 have filed an application dated 18.12.2019 praying therein to accept the certified copy of the sale deeds and marked as exhibits. He then submits that by the sale deeds, the persons purchased the land of the schedule property and they have been tried to be made proposed defendants, which has been rejected by the learned court. He further submits that the same has been transpired later on that the suit property has been sold to the proposed defendants and in view of that the impleadment was sought and the sale deeds have already been exhibited by the learned court as Exhibits-A to F respectively. He submits that in view of above, the proposed defendants are necessary parties and the learned court has erroneously rejected the said petition. 5. Mr. Avilash Kumar and Mr. Madhav Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respective opposite parties vehemently opposed the prayer and submit that the learned court has rightly passed the order and there is no illegality in the impugned order and if that will be allowed the entire nature of the suit will be changed. 6. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff and the defendants herein are family members and own brothers. The suit was instituted for partition and after appearance of the defendants, they have filed their written statements and further sale deeds have been brought on record and the same have been marked as Exhibits-A to F respectively and in this background, the petition under Order-I Rule-10 CPC was field for arraying the defendant Nos. 6 to 11 (proposed defendants 6 to 12). 7. Once the defendant Nos. 6 to 11 (proposed defendants 6 to 12) are found to be the purchasers of the part of the property, which is the subject matter of the partition suit and if that property is partitioned between the parties, they are entitled to claim their share as per the sale deeds and in this regard, reference may be made to the case of Dhanlakshmi and Ors. vs. P. Mohan and Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 719 , where in Para-5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “5. Section 52 deals with a transfer of property pending suit. In the instant case, the appellants have admittedly purchased the undivided shares of the respondents nos. 2, 3, 4 & 6. vs. P. Mohan and Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 719 , where in Para-5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “5. Section 52 deals with a transfer of property pending suit. In the instant case, the appellants have admittedly purchased the undivided shares of the respondents nos. 2, 3, 4 & 6. It is not in dispute that the first respondent P. Mohan has got an undivided share in the said suit property. Because of the purchase by the appellants of the undivided share in the suit property, the rights of the first respondent herein in the suit or proceeding will not affect his right in the suit property by enforcing a partition. Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property from the other co- sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to come on record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings. In our opinion, the appellants are necessary and proper parties to the suit, which is now pending before the Trial Court. We also make it clear that we are not concerned with the other suit filed by the mortgagee in these proceedings.” 8. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, no doubt lays down that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject matter of a suit from any of the parties to the suit will be bound in so far as that interest is concerned by the proceedings in the suit. Such a transferee is a representative in interest of the party, from whom, he has acquired that interest. Rule 10 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly recognizes the right of a transferee to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and to be heard before any order is made. 9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the court finds that the defendant Nos. 6 to 11 (proposed defendants 6 to 12) are the necessary parties in the suit, as it has been pointed out that the suit properties have been purchased by them also. 10. As such, the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. 6 to 11 (proposed defendants 6 to 12) are the necessary parties in the suit, as it has been pointed out that the suit properties have been purchased by them also. 10. As such, the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Ranchi, in Original Suit No. 406 of 2017, wherein the Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 566 of 2024, filed by the petitioner under Order-I Rule-10 of the CPC for impleading the persons, who have purchased the land in question by the registered sale deeds as defendant Nos. 6 to 11 (proposed defendants 6 to 12) has been rejected by the learned court, is hereby, set aside. 11. The petition filed for impleadment under Order-I Rule-10 CPC is hereby allowed and disposed of and the learned court will allow the petitioner to implead the defendant Nos. 6 to 11 (proposed defendants 6 to 12) in the suit and the learned court will proceed further in accordance with law. 12. With the above observation, this petition is allowed and disposed of.