The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a civil revision challenging the rejection of an application to implead a subsequent vendee. The court held that while a transferee pendente lite is a necessary party, impleadment requires court leave, and the transferee is bound bydoctrine of lis pendens.
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 Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No.2919 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: October 23, 2009
Parveen Kumar and another
.. Petitioners
Vs.
Subhash Chander and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.K. Saini, Advocate for the respondents.
A.N. Jindal, J
Challenge has been made to the order dated 25.3.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, declining the application preferred by the petitioner for impleading respondent No.4 Mohinder Pal.
The plaintiff-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner) had challenged the decree dated 12.8.1981 suffered by the defendant No.3 Balwant Singh in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. The said suit is now at the stage of rebuttal and arguments. On coming to know about the subsequent execution of the sale deed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the defendant No.4 Mohinder Pal during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application for impleading him as party defendant in the suit which was dismissed.
Heard. It is settled proposition of law that the transferee pendente lite is necessary party however, he could be impleaded as party defendant only with the leave of the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case Amit Kumar Shaw and another vs. Farida Khatoon and another, 2005 (2) Civil Court Cases 423 , wherein it was observed as under :-
“An alienee pendente lite is bound by the final decree that may be passed in the suit. Such an alienee can be brought on record both under this rule as also under Order 1 Rule 10.
Civil Revision No.2919 of 2009
-2-
Since under the doctrine of lis pendens a decree passed in the suit during the pendency of which transfer is made binds the transferee, his application to be brought on record should ordinarily be allowed.”
Similar observations were made in case B. Basheer Khan vs. Syed Shareef and another, 2006 (3) Civil Court Cases 108 (AP). However, while further elaborating about the impleadment of the transferee pendente lite, it was observed in case Sanjay Verma vs. Manik Ray and others 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 408 as under :-
“A transferee pendente lite cannot seek impleadment as of right without leave of the court. There is absolutely no rule that the transferee pendente lite without leave of the court should in all cases contest the pending suit. A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree just as much as he was a party to the suit. The principle of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act being a principle of public policy, no question of good faith or bonafide arises. If a person is not a party to a suit, the decree does not affect him unless the judgment is in remand not in personem.”
From the observations as made above, it could be concluded that irrespective of the fact that the transferee pendente lite is a necessary party, he could be impleaded as such only with the leave of the court (the transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree just as much as he was a party to the suit).
In the present case, the plaintiff is oblivious of the fact that the suit is pending at the last stage and in order to save himself from further litigation and a technical plea, which may be set up by the subsequent vendee that the decree was passed in his absence has applied for impleading him as party defendant. But, keeping in view the fact that the respondent strenuously resists that he being not the necessary party, the application is not maintainable, this court is not so serious to implead him as kparty
Civil Revision No.2919 of 2009
-3-
defendant as he being in the knowledge of the pendency of the suit as well as the proceedings going on in the court against his predecessor vendee would remain bound by the decree if passed against the defendants.
In view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. However, the respondents would step into the shoes of his vendee and judgment and decree passed against the defendants would remain binding upon the present respondents (including the subsequent vendee) and would not be within their rights to set up the plea at the later stage that they remain undefended or the suit was not properly contested.
October 23, 2009 deepak
(A.N. Jindal) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for impleadment of a transferee pendente lite is maintainable without leave of the court when the transferee resists being added as a necessary party.
Whether a transferee pendente lite is bound by a decree passed against the transferor even if they were not a party to the suit due to knowledge of pendency.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amit Kumar Shaw and another vs. Farida Khatoon and anotherReferred¶14
Amit Kumar Shaw and another vs. Farida Khatoon and another, 2005 (2) Civil Court Cases 423
B. Basheer Khan vs. Syed Shareef and anotherReferred¶19
B. Basheer Khan vs. Syed Shareef and another, 2006 (3) Civil Court Cases 108 (AP)
Sanjay Verma vs. Manik Ray and othersReferred¶20
Sanjay Verma vs. Manik Ray and others 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 408
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Parveen Kumar and another
Subhash Chander and others
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
