Transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree passed against the judgment-debtor

 Transferee pendente lite is treated in the eye of the law as a representative-in-interest of the judgment-debtor and bound by the decree passed against the judgment-debtor. In case of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of any suit, Order 22 Rule 10 CPC confers a discretion on the court hearing the suit to grant leave to the person in or upon whom such interest has come to vest or devolve to be brought on record. Bringing on a lis pendents transferee on record is not as of right but in the discretion of the court." 
The Apex Court very categorically held that pendente lite transferee can not claim as a matter of right and to be heard. It is the discretion of the Court
Allahabad High court
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.23222 OF 2011 
Surendra Kumar Verma and another. ....Petitioners 
Versus 
Ram Bhajan and others. .....Respondents 

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J. 

The plaintiff filed a suit for demolition of a chajjha. The suit was decreed in the year 1987. It has been put for execution. It appears that during the pendency of the execution proceedings, the judgment debtor has transferred the property to one Sri Mohal Lal in the year 1997 and, thereafter, on 06.02.2003 Sri Mohal Lal has sold the property to the petitioners. In the execution proceeding the petitioners moved an application under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. for making him as party and to be heard and also filed objection under Order 47 C.P.C. The same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 25.03.2011. 
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners being the subsequent purchasers are entitled to be heard as his right will be affected and, therefore, they should be impleaded and their objection should be considered. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Sarewgee and others Vs. Purbanchal Estates (P) Ltd,. and others, reported in (2006) 9 SCC, 199 and also the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Sardari Lal and others, reported in (2004) 2 SCC, 601. 
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the impugned order and the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. 
In the case of Devendra Kumar Sarewgee and others Vs. Purbanchal Estates (P) Ltd,. and others (Supra), the Apex Court held as follows: 
"This Court after detailed consideration of the case-law in Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal, reported in (2004) 2 SCC, 601 has held that the transferee pendente lite is treated in the eye of the law as a representative-in-interest of the judgment-debtor and bound by the decree passed against the judgment-debtor. In case of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of any suit, Order 22 Rule 10 CPC confers a discretion on the court hearing the suit to grant leave to the person in or upon whom such interest has come to vest or devolve to be brought on record. Bringing on a lis pendents transferee on record is not as of right but in the discretion of the court." 
The Apex Court very categorically held that pendente lite transferee can not claim as a matter of right and to be heard. It is the discretion of the Court. In the present case, the suit was decreed in the year 1987 and just to avoid the execution of the decree, the judgment debtor had sold the property to one Sri Mohan Lal in the year 1997 and, thereafter, Sri Mohal Lal sold the property to the petitioner in the year 2003. It is unfortunate that the decree having been passed in the year 1987, the plaintiff is not able to get it executed till date. 
On the facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to interference in the matter. The writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. 
Dt.21.04.2011. 

Print Page