Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1196 (PAT)

Rajendra Thakur v. Jawahar Thakur

2009-09-08

RAVI RANJAN

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. B. N. Sinha Suman, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 16.2.2006 passed by the Sub Judge-ll, Rosera, Samastipur in Title Suit No. 38 of 1999, whereby a petition filed on behalf of the Opposite Party no.5 for adding him as a party defendant in the suit has been allowed by the court concerned. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that without taking leave of the court, one of the defendants immediately after filing of the suit on 1.6.1999, has sold part of the suit property to the opposite party no.5 on 7.6.1999. It is further submitted that since the transaction was made without leave of the court, the court below ought to have rejected the prayer as the opposite party no.5 could not be the necessary party. 4. The trial court after hearing the rival submissions of the parties had noticed that an agreement for sale was entered into between the concerned defendant and the opposite party no.5 on 24.5.1999 itself and thereafter the suit was filed and, thus, after filing of the suit, the sale deed concerned was executed in favour of the opposite party no.5. Since the agreement for sale was effected prior to the partition suit and the subsequent sale was effected within a week after filing of the title suit concerned, the court below has held that in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to implead the opposite party no.5 as defendant. 5. In a decision rendered by the Apex court in Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. V/s. Farida Khatoon & Anr., ( AIR 2005 SC 2209 ), the Apex Court has noticed the provision as laid down under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that before the final order having been passed in the suit, an alienee pendente lite may be joined as a party. The court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interest as the concerned party to the suit after transfer of the property would definitely not take much interest in the proceeding suit. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 16.2.2006. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 16.2.2006. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed.