HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11755 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri Mohan Singh for respondent No.s 4 and 5. 1. In light of the proposed order notice to the private respondents is dispensed with. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that one Chandra Shekhar, the father of the petitioner, had filed a suit for declaration under Section 229 B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act with regard to the land situated at gata No.s 380, 443, 444, 135, 413 and 386 totaling to 2.2730 hectares situated at Village Bhairopur Dubey, Aldemua and land gata No.s 153 and 155 containing 0.205 hectare and gata No.349 Ka area 0.0630 hectare situated at Village Tikari, pargana Aldemau, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur. 3. It is submitted that during the said proceeding an interim order was passed on 16.2.2015 that in case opposite party No.7 executes any sale deed, it will be violative of the order dated 30.4.2010 and despite the said restraint order opposite party No.7 sold the property to opposite party No.26. It is pursuant to the sale deed that opposite party No.s 26 therein moved an application for impleadment as 4. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vikas Yadav, Akash Tiwari, Arpit Dwivedi, Shivam Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Mahendra Pratap Mishra And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate, Sultanpur And Others .....Respondent(s) respondents. The petitioner therein moved an application for recall of order dated 30.11.2021. An application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. was moved by opposite party No.26 who has purchased the said land by means of the sale deed was rejected by means of order dated 6.6.2022 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate Kadipur, district Sultanpur. Against the order dated dated 6.6.2022 he had preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya which has been allowed by means of the impugned order dad 24.1.2024 which has been assailed in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the sale deed by means of which opposite party No.26 had right, title and interest in the disputed property itself is illegal and void at the very outset and and, therefore, on the basis of void instrument he could not have any right, title or interest over the disputed land. It is on this ground that he submits that the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. was moved which also could not have been allowed and the revenue authorities below have illegally allowed the application and prayed for setting the said order. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the writ petition stating that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that opposite party no.26 has purchased the disputed land by means of a registered sale deed dated 18.10.2021 and once sale deed has been executed in his favour it cannot be said that he has no right, title or interest in the disputed property till such time the said sale deed is cancelled and, therefore, he would be a necessary party to the present dispute and accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 6. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that opposite party No.26 has purchased the disputed property by means of a registered sale deed dated 18.4.2021 and it is on the strength of the said sale deed that he had moved an application for impleadment. Initially, the trial court had rejected the application for impleadment vide 7. WRIC No. 11755 of 2025 2 order dated 6.6.2022 but the said order was set aside by he revisional authority by means of the impugned order dated 24.1.2024. There is no ambiguity with regard to the law pertaining to becoming necessary party in as much as a person should demonstrate that he has sufficient interest in the disputed property. Once a person is able to demonstrate that he has sufficient interest in the disputed party then he can move application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for becoming a party in the said matter. We further hasten to add that by becoming mere a party does not reflect merits of the controversy nor does it reflect on merits of the instrument by which right in the property was acquired or inherited or otherwise. Till such time instrument exists, the right of the said person of becoming a party cannot be denied. It is only when the sale deed is set aside by the competent court and right in any property would stand extinguished and such person cannot thereafter claim any right, title or interest in the disputed property. In this regard, Supreme Court judgment in the case of Yogesh Goyanka Vs. Govind & Ors. passed in [Civil Appeal No(s). 7305 of 2024 arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 10005 of 2022] can be relied upon. It is in aforesaid circumstances that we find that valid sale deed exists in favour of opposite party No.26 on the strength of which he has moved application for impleadment. We further find that there is no dispute that till date the said sale deed has not been cancelled and therefore, a person having acquired right, title or interest has right to be a party in the proceedings where right, title and interest of the disputed property is being adjudicated. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 24.1.2024. The petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. 9. December 9, 2025 RKM. WRIC No. 11755 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench