CMP filed to quash rejection of impleadment application. Court noted overlap in subject matter but observed vendor and partition suit parties already protect petitioner's interest. Held no infirmity in impugned order dismissing CMP.
CMP for quashing the impugned order dated 13.02.2020 regarding rejection of impleadment application stands dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 130 of 2021
Veena Devi
.... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Rama Shankar Lal & Ors.
.. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate Mr. Vineet Prakash, Advocate For the Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate
10/14.11.2022 . Heard the parties.
The instant CMP has been preferred for quashing the order dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) IV, Deoghar, in Original Suit No.27 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the learned court below has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading her as intervener defendant in the said suit.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the learned court below has rejected the petition of this petitioner to be impleaded in the suit on the ground that the sale deed on the basis of which this petitioner claims title over the suit property, but the subject matter of sale does not correspond with the schedule property as set out in the plaint. Secondly that he was a pendente lite purchaser and, therefore, provision of Section 52 of the Transfer of the Property Act will not be applicable because the vendor of the petitioner has already been impleaded in the suit who is competent to protect the interest of this petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly submits that part of the observation of the learned court below is factually correct that the subject matter of the sale on the basis of which the petitioner claims title and the suit property is different. However, the impleadment of this petitioner is necessary and he has interest in the suit because of the second relief prayed to declare the decree dated 07.01.2003 passed in T. (P) Suit No.68 of 2002 to be illegal.
From the recital of the sale-deed, it will be evident that the vendor claims right, title over the property transferred by him on the basis of a decree passed in the Suit and, therefore, any adverse order with regard to the judgment and decree will directly affect the interest of this petitioner, as such, it is a necessary party in the suit. Provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC mandates that where a specific right or interest was devolved on a particular party then during pendency of the suit, by the leave of the Court, the suit can be considered against the person upon whom such interest is devolved.
Reliance has been placed rendered in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw and Anr. vs. Farida Khatoon and Anr., reported in 2005 (11) SCC 403, in which the law has been settled that the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the suit, though the court has a discretion to make him a party. But the transferee pendente lite can be added as a property party if his interest in the subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. Hence, 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.
Learned counsel for the Opp. Parties has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2007 and the written statement was filed in the month of June and issues were framed. During pendency of the suit, temporary injunction petition was allowed for preservation of the entire property during which the petitioner has purchased the property. At present the case is now posted for final argument, after 15 years of filing of the suit.
Further, impleading the petitioner at this stage will prolong the trial.
The plea that was taken before the learned court below was that the property of this petitioner with that of the suit land was overlapping, but that plea has now been abandoned and a new plea has been taken with regard to partition suit. The brother of this petitioner, namely, Sunil Kumar Keshri was examined as defendant witness no.2 and he has full information about the proceeding of the case. So ignorance of the pending litigation cannot be pleaded on behalf of the petitioner.
The parties to the said partition suit have all been impleaded in the present suit. Therefore, the interest of this petitioner is well protected through his vendor(s) as well as the parties to the partition suit.
Reliance has been placed on 2012 (8) SCC 384 at Para 36 wherein it has been held that parties should be allowed to be impleaded only when either they are proper and necessary party whose presence in the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issue involved in the suit.
Having considered rival submissions and stage of the suit and taking into account the fact that the vendor of the petitioner as well as parties to the Partition Suit is already on record, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the instant CMP stands dismissed.
( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )
Sandeep/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an alienee pendente lite who purchased property overlapping with suit land is a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Whether Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to prevent impleadment here given the vendor is already party.
Whether the impleadment of the petitioner at this late stage of the trial warrants quashing the order rejecting her application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amit Kumar Shaw and Anr. vs. Farida Khatoon and Anr.Referred¶14
2005 (11) SCC 403 · Who else cites this
2012 (8) SCC 384Referred¶19
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Veena Devi
Rama Shankar Lal & Ors.
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
