Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 405 (JHR)

Manik Roy v. Sanjay Verma

2006-04-19

N.N.TIWARI

body2006
Order Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to confine his prayer in writ application only for assailing the order dated 16.1.2006 as contained in Annexure-7 and to abandon his prayer with respect to the order dated 9.8.2005, contained in Annexure-4, the same being an appealable order. 2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 16.1.2006 as contained in Annexure-7, whereby the learned court below has rejected the petitioners' application for their addition as a party on the ground that the petitioners are purchasers of the property during the pendency of the suit and as such their transfer is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. The petitioners' case is that they had no knowledge about the previous agreement or the pendency of the title suit at the time of their purchase and their vendor was not a party to the suit and they are bona fide purchasers for value and as such the petitioners' claim is not hit by the provision of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 4. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that though the petitioners are the subsequent purchasers and admittedly neither they nor their vendor were party in the suit but the title suit is of the year 1991 and if the petitioners are allowed to be impleaded as a party, there will be further delay in disposal of the suit. 5. After hearing the parties and perusing the records. I find that the court below has passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioners' prayer for their addition as a party considering the date of transfer in their names, which is admittedly during the pendency of the suit. However, learned court below has not considered that the petitioner's vendor is not a party to the suit and there is no representation of the petitioners or their vendor in the suit. 6. Considering that the petitioners' vendors are also not a party to the suit and there is no body to represent and safeguard the interest of the petitioners, they are required to be added as a party in the suit for the ends of justice. The court below without taking into consideration the said aspect has erroneously rejected the petitioners' prayer. This writ application is thus allowed. The petitioners' application for their addition as a party is allowed. The court below without taking into consideration the said aspect has erroneously rejected the petitioners' prayer. This writ application is thus allowed. The petitioners' application for their addition as a party is allowed. The court below shall fix a date giving them reasonable time to file their written statement. No further time will be given to them for that purpose. Since the case is of the year 1991 the court below shall not grant unnecessary adjournment to any. party and shall proceed to dispose of the case, expeditiously.