Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 900 (PAT)

Guljar Rai v. Laldeo Singh

2013-07-30

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner, in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is aggrieved by the order dated 27.05.2013 passed in Title Suit No. 07/ 2003 by learned Sub Judge-VI, Vaishali, Hajipur whereby the court below has rejected a petition for impleading the petitioner as party defendant in the suit. 3. The suit was filed by the respondent No.1. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner purchased a part of the suit land bearing Khata No. 85, Plot No. 413, area 46 decimals through a sale deed executed on 12.01.2013. The petitioner’s case is that he had no knowledge about the pendency of the suit and when he learnt about the pendency of the suit, he filed an application before the court below under Order 1 Rule 10(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure for his impleadment as a party defendant. The court below, however, rejected the application by the order dated 27.05.2013 which is under challenge in the present application. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that being a transferee pendente lite, the petitioner became a necessary party and he ought to have been impleaded as a defendant by the court below. He submits that in order to safeguard his interest, the court below should have allowed him to be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit. He has placed reliance upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397 (Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors (P) Ltd.). 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioner, knowing well that a suit was pending, purchased the property without seeking leave from the court and, therefore, the court below rightly rejected the application Order 1 Rule 10(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submits that the transfer was hit by doctrine of lis pendens, as contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. He submits that petitioner being neither a necessary nor a proper party was rightly not allowed by the court below to be impleaded as party defendant. He has placed reliance upon a Supreme Court judgement reported in 2004 (1) SCC 191 (Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hasan Saheb & anr). 6. He submits that petitioner being neither a necessary nor a proper party was rightly not allowed by the court below to be impleaded as party defendant. He has placed reliance upon a Supreme Court judgement reported in 2004 (1) SCC 191 (Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hasan Saheb & anr). 6. On the basis of rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, the only question which the present application involves is as to whether the petitioner, a transferee pendente lite should be impleaded as party defendant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, or whether such transfer being hit by doctrine of lis pendens, disentitles him from being impleaded as party defendant. 7. The issue involved in the present case directly fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (supra). The Supreme Court, considering almost all the previous case laws, has held in paragraph 26 that it is well settled that the doctrine of lis pendens is a doctrine based on the ground that it is necessary for the administration of justice that the decision of a court in a suit should be binding not only on the litigating parties but on those who derive title pendente lite. The court, however, held that the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act did not indeed annul the conveyance or the transfer otherwise, but render it subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation. It further held in paragraph 30 that in the light of settled principles of law on the doctrine of lis pendens, Order 1 Rule 10(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the court is necessary for effective adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. In that case though the court held that the transaction by the intervener was a clandestine transaction and, therefore, not a bonafide purchaser but the Supreme Court held that being transferee pendente lite he was to be added as a party to the suit. 8. It is true that a transferee pendente lite cannot take a stand different from that taken by his vendor in a suit. 8. It is true that a transferee pendente lite cannot take a stand different from that taken by his vendor in a suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, if impleaded, the petitioner would not be adducing any evidence nor would be making any statement or taking any stand contrary to that of his vendor. 9. In view of above, the impugned order dated 27.05.2013 passed in Title Suit No. 07/2003 by learned Sub-Judge-VI Vaishali is set aside. 10. The petitioner is directed to be impleaded as a party defendant in Title Suit No. 07/2013 pending in the court of learned Sub Judge- VI, Vaishali, Hajipur. 11. It is clarified that, as a result of his impleadment, the petitioner can raise and pursue only such evidence as available and taken by the original defendants and none other. It is reiterated, in view of undertaking given on behalf of the petitioner, that petitioner shall not adduce any evidence as the suit is at the stage of final argument. 12. It is expected that petitioner, after his impleadment, will not seek unnecessary adjournment and cause any obstruction in disposal of the suit. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed.