A civil revision petition under Article 226 challenging an order rejecting an application to implead a lis pendens purchaser. The High Court quashed the lower order and directed impleadment.
The order dated 30.3.2000 quashed and the petitioner directed to be impleaded as a party to final decree proceedings.
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.
WP(C) No.6167 of 2007
16.11.2015 Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 30.3.2000 passed by the lea
rned Civil Judge (Sr.Division) Puri in O.S.No.100 of 1976-I, vide Annexure-5, the instant peti
tion is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the said order the learned tr
ial court rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. for imple
adment.
Heard Mr.Dutta learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learn
ed Senior Advocate for the opposite parties.
Mr.Dutta learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a l
is pendens purchaser. Thus they are necessary party to the final decree proceeding.
This Court in the case of Mirza Golam Jelani Baig Vrs. Sir Prabir Kumar Samal
2015(II) OLR 663 held that the events happening subsequent to the passing of the preliminary d
ecree can also be taken into consideration and decided at the stage of final decree proceeding
. The petitioner has direct interest in the subject matter of litigation. Thus he is a proper
party to lis.
In view of the above the order dated 30.3.2000 passed by the learned Civil Jud
ge (Sr.Division) Puri in O.S.No.100 of 1976-I, vide Annexure-5, is hereby quashed. The learned
trial court is directed to implead the petitioner as a party to the final decree proceeding.
It is made clear that this Court has not examined the validity of the registered sale deed sai
d to have been executed by the vendor of the petitioner. It is open to the court below to deci
de the same in the event such issue is raised.
The petition is allowed.
Dr.A.K.Rath,J
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lis pendens purchaser is a necessary party to final decree proceedings?
Whether subsequent events can be considered at the stage of final decree proceedings?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mirza Golam Jelani Baig Vrs. Sir Prabir Kumar SamalReferred¶5
Mirza Golam Jelani Baig Vrs. Sir Prabir Kumar Samal 2015(II) OLR 663
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite Parties
Dr. A.K. Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court