This Writ Petition challenged an appellate court order allowing impleadment of a subsequent purchaser. The High Court held that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC applies to appeals and no infirmity existed in the lower court's discretion to add a necessary party.
The Writ Petition was dismissed at the motion stage for being bereft of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 399 of 2024
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Lalit Dhimar S/o Late Accheram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.)
2. Radheshyam Chandra S/o Om Prakash Chandra R/o Ward No. 04, Tahsil Jaijaipur, Thana Jaijaipur, District Shakti Chhattisgarh.
3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District - Sakti (C.G.)
---- Respondents
CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. TK Jha and NP Thakur, Advocate. For State : Ms. Vaishali Mahliong, PL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board
11.06.2024
1. This Petition has been filed against the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Sakti, DistrictJanjgir in Civil Appeal No. 33A/2024 whereby the appellate Court has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, for addition of parties of the subsequent purchaser Radheshyam.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.1/plaintiff had knowledge of transfer of suit land during pendency of the trial proceeding, and had also filed an objection during the mutation. In view of such, the First Appellate Court
2
wrongly allowed the application for addition of the parties of the
subsequent purchaser, which is liable to be dismissed.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. It is well established that impleadment can be made even at the stage of the appeal and the said proposition has been held in the matter of Jamal Mohammad v. Saukat Ara , 1992 SCC OnLine Ori 201, and at Para 5 following has been observed:-
5. It is also urged that in appeal there is no scope for impletion. This submission has also not merit. An appeal is a continuation of the suit. There being no limitation prescribed for an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2), C.P.C. a lis pendens transferee can be impleaded at the appellate stage. Our conclusion is fortified by two decisions of the Nagpur and Madhya Pradesh High Courts in C. Wright Neville v. E.H. Freser, A.I.R. 1944 Nag. 137, and Devisahai Premraj Mahajan v. Govindrao Balwantrao; A.I.R. 1965 M.P. 275. Principles embodied in Order 1, Rule 10 (2), C.P.C. apply to appeals. This Court on being satisfied that the impletion of the purchasers was necessary has accepted the prayer.
5. In case at hand, the subsequent purchaser has substantial interest in the adjudication of the matter and has directly affected by the decision of the appellate Court and it is a discretion of a Court to add a person as a party, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the said proposition has been reiterated in the matter of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre And Hotels Private Limited And Others , reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417.
3
6. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order which warrants interference invoking writ jurisdiction.
7. Accordingly, this Petition being bereft of merit and substance is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Avinash
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impleadment of a subsequent purchaser as a party can be allowed at the appellate stage under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Whether there was any infirmity in passing the order allowing addition of parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jamal Mohammad v. Saukat AraReferred¶22
Jamal Mohammad v. Saukat Ara, 1992 SCC OnLine Ori 201 · Who else cites this
C. Wright Neville v. E.H. FreserRelied on¶23
C. Wright Neville v. E.H. Freser, A.I.R. 1944 Nag. 137 · Who else cites this
Devisahai Premraj Mahajan v. Govindrao BalwantraoRelied on¶23
Devisahai Premraj Mahajan v. Govindrao Balwantrao; A.I.R. 1965 M.P. 275 · Who else cites this
Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre And Hotels Private Limited And OthersRelied on¶24
Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre And Hotels Private Limited And Others, (2010) 7 SCC 417
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tularam Dhimar
Lalit Dhimar
Radheshyam Chandra
State of Chhattisgarh
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
