Appeal against order allowing impleadment of subsequent buyers under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. High Court of Delhi held that no limitation period applies to applications for substitution under this rule and the court need not inquire into validity of the sale deed at this stage.
Appeal and connected application dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
$~24
versus
GIAN CHAND SETHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Savita Malhotra, Advocate with Ms.Suman Malhotra, Advocate for R2 and R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
O R D E R
Page 1 of 7
FAO 125/2018
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
under:-
“10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit. – (1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.
(2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest entitling
Page 2 of 7
FAO 125/2018
the person who procured such attachment to the benefit of sub-rule (1).”
Page 3 of 7
FAO 125/2018
or any other person interested, to apply to the court for leave to continue the suit. But it does not follow that it is obligatory upon them to do so. If a party does not ask for leave, he takes the obvious risk that the suit may not be properly conducted by the plaintiff on record, and yet, as pointed out by Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Moti Lal v. Karrabuldin [ILR (1898) 25 Cal 179 : 24 IA 170 : 1 CWN 639 (PC)] he will be bound by the result of the litigation even though he is not represented at the hearing unless it is shown that the litigation was not properly conducted by the original party or he colluded with the adversary. It is also plain that if the person who has acquired an interest by devolution, obtains leave to carry on the suit, the suit in his hands is not a new suit, for, as Lord Kingsdown of the Judicial Committee said in Prannath Roy Chowdry v. Rookea Begum [(1857-60) 7 MIA 323], a cause of action is not prolonged by mere transfer of the title. It is the old suit carried on at his instance and he is bound by all proceedings up to the stage when he obtains leave to carry on the proceedings.’
Page 4 of 7
FAO 125/2018
substitution of the appellant/applicant because no limitation period is provided for a person to be substituted under Order 22 Rule 10, CPC in place of original party to the proceedings. Also, I do not see any prejudice whatsoever to the respondent before the probate Court, and the respondent in these proceedings, inasmuch as the applicant/appellant is being substituted at the same stage which existed when the application under Order 22 Rule 10, CPC is filed and there is not putting of any clock back or other similar prejudice to the respondent.’
“16. The doctrine of lis pendens applies only where the lis is pending before a court. Further pending the suit, the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the suit, though the court has a
Page 5 of 7
FAO 125/2018
discretion to make him a party. But the transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. A transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, where the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant; the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party, under Order 22 Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party. As already noticed, the court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests. The court has held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where his predecessor-in-interest is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case.”
Page 6 of 7
FAO 125/2018
respondent No.1 in their favour by ordering impleadment. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Shaw (supra) further held in Para 12 that ‘Under Order 22 Rule 10, no detailed inquiry at the stage of granting leave is contemplated. The court has only to be prima facie satisfied for exercising its discretion in granting leave for continuing the suit by or against the person on whom the interest has devolved by assignment or devolution. The question about the existence and validity of the assignment or devolution can be considered at the final hearing of the proceedings. The court has only to be prima facie satisfied for exercising its discretion in granting leave for continuing the suit’.
VINOD GOEL, J.
DECEMBER 10, 2018
“shailendra”
Page 7 of 7
FAO 125/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC must comply with the 3-year limitation period under residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
Whether a transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC without a detailed inquiry regarding the validity of the assignment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and othersExplained¶24
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and others, AIR 2001 SC 2552 · Who else cites this
Moti Lal v. KarrabuldinReferred¶24
Moti Lal v. Karrabuldin, ILR (1898) 25 Cal 179 : 24 IA 170 : 1 CWN 639 · Who else cites this
Prannath Roy Chowdry v. Rookea BegumReferred¶24
Prannath Roy Chowdry v. Rookea Begum, (1857-60) 7 MIA 323
Sirjan Pal Singh vs. Harminder Singh Bakshi & Ors.Relied on¶28
Sirjan Pal Singh vs. Harminder Singh Bakshi & Ors., 207 (2014) DLT 567 · Who else cites this
Sheela Wanti Vs. Kuldeep Singh & AnotherRelied on¶32
Sheela Wanti Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Another, 100 (2002) DLT 201 · Who else cites this
Amit Kumar Shaw and Anr. v. Farida Khatoon and Anr.Relied on¶33
Amit Kumar Shaw and Anr. v. Farida Khatoon and Anr., JT 2005(5) SC 20 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajwanti Phogat
Gian Chand Sethi
Vinod Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
