https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313653 A proposed purchaser was held to be a necessary party in a suit for specific performance and injunction where the property had already been transferred to him by registered sale deed before the suit was filed. Because the plaintiff had also originally impleaded him, his presence was considered necessary for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The trial court's order allowing impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 was therefore sustained, and the revision challenge failed. en-us Tue, 09 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:04:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313653 A proposed purchaser was held to be a necessary party in a suit for specific performance and injunction where the property had already been transferred to him by registered sale deed before the suit was filed. Because the plaintiff had also originally impleaded him, his presence was considered necessary for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The trial court's order allowing impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 was therefore sustained, and the revision challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313653