Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4358 (MAD)

Philomina Mary v. M. I. Rafideen

2014-11-20

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2014
Judgment The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. He filed the said suit against the first respondent herein for permanent injunction restraining him from in any way interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 2. Pending suit, the plaintiff has sold the suit property to the second respondent herein. Consequently, she along with the second respondent herein filed an interim application in I.A.No.1 of 2014 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC seeking for impleading the second respondent/purchaser as second plaintiff in the said suit. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the property was sold during the pendency of the suit and therefore, such transaction was hit by lis pendens. Thus, by observing so, the Trial Court found that neither the plaintiff nor the subsequent purchaser is entitled to maintain the present application. 3. In this matter, notice of motion was ordered by this Court on 09.10.2014 also by granting interim stay for a period of three weeks. Private notice was also permitted. The private notice as well as the Court notice were served on the respondents. However, the respondents have not chosen to appear before the Court either in person or through a counsel and on the other hand, their names were also printed in the cause list. 4. Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this case is no more res integra, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2014-3-L.W.769, V.L. Dhandapani v. Revathy Ramachandran and others, wherein it has been held that the transferee pendente lite can be impleaded as party to the suit. The learned counsel also invited this Court's attention to the facts of the said case before the Division Bench to contend that the suit therein was also for permanent injunction, where the subsequent purchaser from the plaintiff sought to be impleaded was originally rejected and the Division Bench of this Court by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2013-2-L.W.748 (SC), Thomsom Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and others held that transferee pendente lite can be impleaded as party to the suit. In paragraph 15 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, it has been held as follows: “15. In paragraph 15 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, it has been held as follows: “15. Now coming to the reference made, we are of the view that in the light of the decision rendered in THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LIMITED V. NANAK BUILDERS AND INVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS 2013-2-L.W.748 (SC) = (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases 397 that a transferee pendente lite can be impleaded as a party to the suit. However, we make it clear that the question as to whether such a party is entitled to be impleaded will have to be decided from the facts of the case. Accordingly, the reference sought for is answered.” 5. In the instant case, the Trial Court has not found anywhere that the proposed party is not a bonafide purchaser, but on the other hand, it is found that the transaction is hit by lis pendens. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the above decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2014-3-L.W.769, V.L. Dhandapani v. Revathy Ramachandran and others squarely applies to the present case, in favour of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the Trial Court dated 05.04.2014 made in I.A.No.1 of 2014 in O.S.No.1642 of 2007 is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.