https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313655 The court allowed the revision petition, directing the impleadment of Satish Kumar as a defendant in the suit for specific performance. It emphasized that his status as a bona fide purchaser at a public auction, supported by a sale certificate, made him a necessary party for complete adjudication under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The court highlighted that the liability against the defendant corporation predated the agreement in question, suggesting potential evasion of creditor claims. Consequently, the court reversed the initial decision of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana, ensuring effective and comprehensive resolution of the suit. en-us Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:13:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313655 The court allowed the revision petition, directing the impleadment of Satish Kumar as a defendant in the suit for specific performance. It emphasized that his status as a bona fide purchaser at a public auction, supported by a sale certificate, made him a necessary party for complete adjudication under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The court highlighted that the liability against the defendant corporation predated the agreement in question, suggesting potential evasion of creditor claims. Consequently, the court reversed the initial decision of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana, ensuring effective and comprehensive resolution of the suit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313655