creation of charge upon the suit property upon default of payment of purchase money and as such the rights of the petitioner being subsequent transferee is directly affected. It is now settled by catena of decisions that what makes a person a necessary party is that he should have direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceedings and the outcome should directly affect his rights. In the present case, in event the defendant, upon a decree being passed fails to comply with the same, the non- compliance will result into charge being created upon the property in respect of which the petitioner has already parted with valuable consideration and as such he would be foisted with the liability of the defendant. The interest of the petitioner being directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings, in my view, the petitioner is a necessary party. The trial Court has rejected the application by considering that there was no permission sought while effecting the sale deed during pendency of the proceedings. The trial Court took into consideration the provisions of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, however failed to notice that application has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC read with Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner be subject to terms cannot be considered as there is no proposition of law which can support the said submission of learned counsel for the respondent. The only issue which was required to be considered by this Court is whether the petitioner is a necessary party to the proceedings. In that context the decision which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Thomson Press (India)
