Whether purchaser pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded as party to suit?

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
In A Nawab John and others Versus V.N. Subramaniyam,
[(2012) 7 SCC 738], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a
pendente lite purchaser's application for impleadment should
normally be allowed or "considered liberally". The paragraph
22 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as follows:-
"22. The preponderance of opinion of this Court is that a pendente lite
purchaser's application for impleadment should normally be allowed or
"considered liberally"."

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27485 of 2014
Petitioner :- Ram Bilas
Respondent :- Raj Kumar & 12 Others

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Citation: 2014 (106) ALR 489, 2014 125 RD660

Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Sri Arvind Srivastava assisted by Sri Manoj Mishra,
learned counsel for the respondents.
The defendant/petitioner has approached this Court
challenging the orders dated 28.04.2014 passed by the
District Judge, Varanasi in Civil Revision No. 86 of 2014,
Ram Bilas Versus Smt. Shakuntala Devi and others, and
order dated 20.01.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior
Division), City, Varanasi in Original Suit No. 8 of 1980, Nand
Kishore and others Versus Ram Bilas and others, allowing
the impleadment of respondent nos. 1 to 3.
The plaintiff/respondents instituted suit No. 8 of 1980, Nand
Kishore and others Versus Ram Bilas and others, seeking
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering in the peaceful possession. Interim injunction was
granted on 11.05.1981. Respondent no. 4 during the
pendency of suit, transferred the property to the respondent
nos. 1 to 3 on 14.05.2013, the transferee pendente lite
moved an application for impleadment as plaintiff being
bonafide purchaser of the suit property to which objections
was filed by the petitioner. The trial court allowed the
application which was challenged in revision. The revisional
court dismissed the revision on merits as well as on
maintainability.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the revision against the order allowing the impleadment
application is maintainable and in support of his submission
he has relied upon K.S.M. Basheer Mohammad and Sons
Versus Ram Bali Singh and others and the court below
had wrongly relied upon the judgment in Commandant, A.P.
Special Police (IR), Cuddapah v. B. Shankar Naik, JT 2003
(4) SC 268. It is contended that the suit property has been
transferred in violation of the injunction order and the
plaintiff earlier in 1990 had transferred the property.
In rebuttal, Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that he is bonafide purchaser and sale
deed is not void and the applicants/petitioner had sought
impleadment as plaintiff and not as the defendant as the
petitioner has apprehension that the interest of the petitioner
will be sub served by the original plaintiff. In support of his
contention, he has relied upon Thomson Press (India)
Limited Versus Nanak Builders and Investors Private
Limited and others, (2013) 5 SC 397.
In A Nawab John and others Versus V.N. Subramaniyam,
[(2012) 7 SCC 738], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a
pendente lite purchaser's application for impleadment should
normally be allowed or "considered liberally". The paragraph
22 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as follows:-
"22. The preponderance of opinion of this Court is that a pendente lite
purchaser's application for impleadment should normally be allowed or
"considered liberally"."
In Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that transferee pendente lite is a
necessary and proper party and should be impleaded.
Paragraph 54 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as
follows:-
"54. The third dimension which arises for consideration is about the right
of a transferee pendente lite to seek addition as a party-defendant to the
suit under Order 1Rule 10 C.P.C. I have no hesitation in concurring with
the view that no one other than the parties to an agreement to sell is a
necessary and proper party to a suit. The decisions of this Court have
elaborated that aspect sufficiently making any further elucidation
unnecessary. The High Court has understood and applied the legal
propositions correctly while dismissing the application of the appellant
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. What must all the same be addressed is
whether the prayer made by the appellant could be allowed under Order
22 Rule 10 CPC.......................It is true that the application which the
appellant made was only under Order 1 rule 10 CPC but the enabling
provision of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC could always be invoked if the fact
situation so demanded. It was in any case not urged by the counsel for
the respondents that Order 22 Rule 10 could not be called in aid with a
view to justifying addition of the appellant as a party-defendant. Such
being the position all that is required to be examined is whether a
transferee pendente lite could in a suit for specific performance be
added as a party-defendant and, if so, on what terms."
This Court declines to interfere with the impugned orders.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Considering the fact that suit is pending since 1980 and is at
the stage of evidence, the court below is directed to decide
the suit in accordance with law, expeditiously, within a period
of one year with the outer limit of two years from the date of
production of the certified copy of this order, provided there
is no legal impediment in deciding it.
Order Date :- 16.5.2014
kkm

Print Page