described in 'B' Schedule to reach the 'A' schedule property. The defendant contested the suit and claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, as the plaintiff had alternate ways of reaching her property. After issues were framed, the plaintiff filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the respondent No.2 herein, on the ground that the defendant had sold 'B' schedule property to respondent No.2 on 14.11.2018. This application was contested by the respondent No.2 who claimed that the plaintiffs in O.S Nos.399/2018, 396/2018, 397/2018, 404/2018 are all colluding to grab the property of respondent No.2. She also contended that the plaintiff had given false and concocted boundaries of the 'B' Schedule property and that the same was not identifiable. She admitted that the defendant in the suit had executed a sale deed dated 14.11.2018 and contended that the plaintiff did not disclose the survey number and the measurement of 'B' Schedule property. She contended that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 14.11.2018 were different than the boundaries mentioned by the plaintiff in the schedule to the suit. Therefore, it was contended that the proposed defendant was not a proper and necessary party for the
