Whether purchaser of property during pendency of proceeding can claim to be added as party in the suit?

The provision of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure 
Code permits the Court to add any person whether as a plaintiff or 
defendant   or   whose   presence   before   the   Court   may   be   necessary   in 
order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon 
and settle all the questions involved in the suit.   Merely because the 
transfer, during the pendency of the suit, is hit by the principle of  lis 
pendens  that   cannot   operate   as   bar   for   the   Court   to   exercise   power 
under   Order   I   Rule   10(2)   of   the   Civil   Procedure   Code   to   permit 
subsequent purchaser for being added as a plaintiff.  The petitioner has 
stated that he has stepped into the shoes of the plaintiffs and hence, he 

needs to be provided an opportunity to prosecute or contest the suit, so 
as to settle all questions involved in the suit.  The trial Court has erred 
in rejecting the application Exhibit 37, which needs to be quashed and 
In the result, the writ petition is allowed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO 
 .2499 OF 2013


Yogesh s/o Balaji Misar,
Vs
 Keshav Vistari Sontakke,
   
                             CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.

                                 DATED  : 18   JANUARY, 2014.
 Citation;2014(5)MHLJ53



Court on 09­5­2013.  In spite of service of notices, none appears for the 
respondents.  It is, therefore, not necessary for this Court to issue fresh 
notices.  
2.
Rule,   made   returnable   forthwith.   Heard   Shri 
B.M. Kharkate, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 
3.
By the impugned order dated 20­11­2012 passed by the 
Civil   Judge   (Jr.Dn.),   Bramhapuri,   the   application   Exhibit   37   filed   in 
Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2010 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with 
Section  151 of  the  Civil  Procedure  Code  by the  petitioner  for  being 
joined as plaintiff in the suit, has been rejected.   The trial Court has 
held that on the date when the suit was filed the petitioner was not the 

owner of the suit property, but the original plaintiffs had claimed the 
ownership of the suit property. The petitioner claims to have purchased 
the suit property during the pendency of the suit by registered sale­
deed   dated   26­7­2011.     The   trial   Court   has   held   that   the   transfers 
during   the   pendency   of   the   suit   are   hit   by   principle   of  lis   pendens 

incorporated under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.   It has 
been   held   that   in   such   circumstances,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the 
presence of such person may be necessary in order to enable the court 
effectively   and   completely   to   adjudicate   upon   and   settle   all   the 
questions involved in the suit.  
4.
The provision of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure 
Code permits the Court to add any person whether as a plaintiff or 
defendant   or   whose   presence   before   the   Court   may   be   necessary   in 
order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon 
and settle all the questions involved in the suit.   Merely because the 
transfer, during the pendency of the suit, is hit by the principle of  lis 
pendens  that   cannot   operate   as   bar   for   the   Court   to   exercise   power 
under   Order   I   Rule   10(2)   of   the   Civil   Procedure   Code   to   permit 
subsequent purchaser for being added as a plaintiff.  The petitioner has 
stated that he has stepped into the shoes of the plaintiffs and hence, he 

needs to be provided an opportunity to prosecute or contest the suit, so 
as to settle all questions involved in the suit.  The trial Court has erred 
in rejecting the application Exhibit 37, which needs to be quashed and 
In the result, the writ petition is allowed.  The order dated 

5.
set aside.
20­11­2012   passed   by   the   Civil   Judge   (Jr.Dn.),   Bramhapuri   below 
Exhibit 37 in Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2010 is hereby quashed and 
set aside.  The application Exhibit 37 filed by the petitioner is allowed 
to the extent of permitting the petitioner to be joined as plaintiff in the 
suit. 
6.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.  No order as to 
costs.
      
                    

Print Page