John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Burkitt, J.
1. An order for sale was made in execution of a decree. A party claiming the property objected. His objection was overruled by the Court of First Instance. He appealed to the High Court. The High Court held that the property ordered to be sold was not property included in the mortgage on which the decree for sale was made and was not property which could be sold under that decree. In the meantime the sale had taken place. Thereupon the owner of the property, which the High Court had held on appeal was not saleable, brought this trait and made the decree-holders and auction-purchaser defendants to the suit and claimed as against them his property. There was absolutely no defence to the suit. The point was res judicata and had been decided by the High Court. But a gentleman named Badri Prasad, possibly at the instance of the defendants, stepped into the legal arena and asked to be allowed to contest the suit as a defendant. The plaintiffs had made no claim against him. Whether he was concerned with the property or not, the suit did not affect him. The Subordinate Judge made Badri Prasad a defendant to the suit and went on and tried an issue between Badri Prasad and the plaintiffs which was not raised by the pleadings between the real parties to the suit and which could not be raised between them owing to Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Subordinate Judge devoted nearly the whole of his energy to this question, which had nothing to do with the issue between the parties to the suit originally. It has been contended here that the Subordinate Judge had power under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring Badri Prasad in as a defendant. In our opinion Section 32 does not enable a Court to go contrary to the ordinary procedure provided by the Code. It would not enable a Court, for instance, to override the effect of the second clause of Section 31, and, because there might be a dozen claimants to a piece of property, all having different interests and all having different claims of title, to make them all parties to the suit as plaintiffs; nor does Section 32 enable a Court to go contrary to Section 45 of the Code, and to impose on the plaintiff to a suit persons as defendants whom he has made no claim against, and against whom he may never make any claim and who have no community of title with the real defendant to the suit. There is no section in the Coda under which Badri Prasad ought to have been made a party to the suit, nor was it necessary to join him in order to enable the Court to adjudicate on and settle any question involved in the suit between the original parties. The position is this: Badri Prasad finding a suit going on in which he was not concerned, steps, into Court and asks the Judge to make him a defendant and settle a point which may or may not be subsequently in dispute between him and the plaintiffs. We should like to have known whether Badri Prasad at the time when the order for sale was made was sufficiently interested in the property to raise any objection to its being sold. We allow this appeal with costs-, and we dismiss Badri Prasad from the suit: he should never have been joined in it. We give the plaintiffs a decree against the defendants other than Badri Prasad for possession, and we declare the sale to be invalid and set it aside. We give the plaintiffs their costs against the parties to this suit.