Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 314 (ALL)

Hari Kishan v. State of U. P.

2016-01-22

SUNEET KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Suneet Kumar, J. The plaintiff/applicants have approached this Court assailing the order dated 12 September 2014 passed by the revisional court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut in Civil Revision No. 227 of 2012, allowing the application under Order I Rule 10 of the third party. 2. In a suit for specific performance, the defendant transferred the property during the pendency of the suit. The third party filed an application stating that he has purchased the property, therefore, is a proper party to the lis, thus, may be impleaded. The trial court rejected the application, however, in revision the application was allowed. 3. In Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 397 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that transferee pendente lite is a necessary and proper party and should be impleaded. Paragraph 54 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted: "54. The third dimension which arises for consideration is about the right of a transferee pendente lite to seek addition as a party-defendant to the suit under Order 1Rule 10 C.P.C. I have no hesitation in concurring with the view that no one other than the parties to an agreement to sell is a necessary and proper party to a suit. The decisions of this Court have elaborated that aspect sufficiently making any further elucidation unnecessary. The High Court has understood and applied the legal propositions correctly while dismissing the application of the appellant under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. What must all the same be addressed is whether the prayer made by the appellant could be allowed under Order 22, Rule 10 CPC..................It is true that the application which the appellant made was only under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC but the enabling provision of Order 22, Rule 10 CPC could always be invoked if the fact situation so demanded. It was in any case not urged by the counsel for the respondents that Order 22, Rule 10 could not be called in aid with a view to justifying addition of the appellant as a party-defendant. Such being the position all that is required to be examined is whether a transferee pendente lite could in a suit for specific performance be added as a party-defendant and, if so, on what terms." 4. Such being the position all that is required to be examined is whether a transferee pendente lite could in a suit for specific performance be added as a party-defendant and, if so, on what terms." 4. The Supreme Court placed reliance upon an earlier judgment rendered in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, 1992(2) SCC 524 , wherein, it was held that the object of the rule of impleadment is to prevent multiplicity of actions. The person to be joint must be one whose presence is necessary as a party, necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved that would make him only a necessary witness. It is not merely that he has interest in the correct solution of some questions involved, the only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to action so that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. It is difficult to say that the rule contemplates joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action. 5. This Court declines to interfere with the impugned orders. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. 6. No cost. Petition dismissed.