Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 153 (JHR)

Sanjay Jaiswal v. Mahendra Singh

2015-02-03

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
Order Aggrieved by order dated 03.01.2014 in Title Appeal No. 58 of 2010 whereby, the application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. preferred by the petitioners has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Briefly stated, the respondent-Mahendra Singh filed Title Suit No. 82 of 2002 seeking specific performance of agreement dated 04.07.1992 and 28.12.2000 which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.04.2010, against which he preferred Title Appeal No. 58 of 2010. The said Title Appeal was filed on 12.05.2010. The present petitioners purchased suit property vide registered sale-deed dated 17.05.2010 from Pratima Chatterjee @ Benu Chatterjee who was defendant in Title Suit No. 82 of 2002. In the Title Appeal No. 58 of 2010, the vendor of the petitioners namely, Pratima Chatterjee @ Benu Chatterjee appeared and filed her written statement on 10.08.2010. After purchasing property, the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 540 of 2010 seeking ejectment of the appellant-Mahendra Singh from the suit property. In the said suit, the appellant-respondent has appeared and filed written statement on 12.12.2011. When the petitioners came to know about the Title Appeal No. 58 of 2010, they preferred application dated 08.03.2013 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. which has been rejected by the Trial Court. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a purchaser pendente lite is entitled for his impleadment in a suit for specific performance of sale agreement in respect of property which he has purchased. It is further submitted that in every case a transfer pendente lite is not void but remains valid, subject to the result of the suit and therefore, the petitioners can defend the right flowing from the sale-deed. 5. As against the above, Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that admittedly, the petitioners were not parties in the suit and at the appellate stage they cannot be permitted to be joined as party. It is further submitted that the petitioners have filed Title Suit No. 540 of 2010 and therefore, their intervention in Title Appeal No. 58 of 2010 is only intended at delaying the disposal of the appeal preferred by the respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioners have filed Title Suit No. 540 of 2010 and therefore, their intervention in Title Appeal No. 58 of 2010 is only intended at delaying the disposal of the appeal preferred by the respondent. In part performance of the agreement dated 04.07.1992 and 28.12.2000, the respondent has been put in possession of the suit property however, during the continuance of the present litigation sale-deed dated 17.05.2010 has been executed in favour of the petitioners which is hit by lis pendens . 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. The issue whether purchaser pendente lite should be impleaded as party in a suit for specific performance in which he has interest in immovable property, is no more res integra. In “Saila Bala Dassi Vs. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and another”, reported in AIR 1958 SC 394 , it has been observed that, “a pendente lite purchaser should be given an opportunity to protect his rights”. In “Amit Kumar Shaw and another Vs. Farida Khatoon and another”, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 403 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, “A transferee pendente lite can be added as party if his interest in the subject matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral”. In “A. Nawab John and others Vs. V.N. Subramaniyam” reported in (2012) 7 SCC 738 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus; 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”. 8. The aforesaid view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated in “Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors Private Limited and Others” reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397 . 9. From the judgments noticed above, it is apparent that the petitioners are proper party in the title appeal. 8. The aforesaid view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated in “Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors Private Limited and Others” reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397 . 9. From the judgments noticed above, it is apparent that the petitioners are proper party in the title appeal. Their addition in the pending appeal is necessary for another reasoning, (i) if the suit is finally decreed, the petitioners/subsequent purchasers may be directed to become a conforming party to the sale-deed and, (ii) in case, the suit is finally decreed in favour of the appellant and the Title Suit No. 540 of 2010 is also decreed in favour of the petitioners, it would bring irreconcilable situation and therefore, to avoid such legal complication, the petitioners should have been impleaded as respondents in Title Appeal No. 58 of 2010. The impugned order dated 03.01.2014 suffers from serious infirmity in law and therefore, it is set-aside. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the application dated 08.03.2013 under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. stands allowed. I.A. No. 2653 of 2014 and I.A. No. 2654 of 2014 stand disposed of. Petition allowed.