Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2299 (JHR)

Meera Choudhary v. Dilip Mahto

2018-10-22

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved of rejection of her application for impleadment in Title Suit No. 159 of 1995. 2. The petitioner is a purchaser of a part of the suit schedule property from one of the legal heirs of the original plaintiff. The suit was instituted in the year 1995 and she has purchased the suit property through sale deed dated 08.07.2003. The defendants have objected to impleadment of the petitioner in the suit on the ground that the petitioner being a purchaser pendente lite would be bound by the decision in the suit and therefore, she is not a necessary party, and she not being a purchaser from a defendant in the suit is not even a proper party. 3. The doctrine of lis pendence has been incorporated under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The object behind Section 52 is to ensure that not only parties to the suit shall be bound by any decision in the suit, those who are claiming a right through a party to the suit also must be bound by any decision in the suit. 4. Whether a person is a necessary party or a proper party in the suit has been explained by the Supreme Court in " Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another , (1963) AIR SC 786" . It has been held that the one whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute is a necessary party and the one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding is a proper party. Under Order-I Rule 10(2) CPC the Court may at any stage of the proceeding, either suo-motu or upon an application of a party, struck out the name of any party who has been improperly joined and name of any person who ought to have been joined may be added in the suit. This power under Order-I Rule 10(2) CPC is grounded on justice, equity and good conscience. 5. Apparently, impleadment of the petitioner in the suit, who is a purchaser pendente lite from the plaintiff, so many years after the suit was instituted, is not necessary. 6. This power under Order-I Rule 10(2) CPC is grounded on justice, equity and good conscience. 5. Apparently, impleadment of the petitioner in the suit, who is a purchaser pendente lite from the plaintiff, so many years after the suit was instituted, is not necessary. 6. In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 14.02.2017, the writ petition is dismissed.