ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Vide impugned order dated 29.01.2021 in Title Suit No. 39 of 2019, Sub-Judge -III Bagaha has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for his impleadment as defendant in that title suit.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased 1 kattha 17 dhur of land appertaining to khata No. 97 plot No. 136 and similarly one kattha 18 dhur land appertaining to khata No. 132 plot No. 135 from one Sanjeev Mishra through registered sale deed dated 04.06.2019. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title in permanent injunction against the defendants.

4. The learned trial Court on the application of the petitioner impleaded Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, the vendor of the petitioners, as defendant but declined to implead the petitioner on the ground that the said transaction was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens propounded under Section 52 (1) of the Transfer of the Properties Act, 1882. In his order, it has been mentioned that in the absence of the petitioner, the effective adjudication of the suit is possible.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioners are vendee of Sanjeev Mishra and they have stepped into the shoes of Sanjeev Mishra as such their impleadment was necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the suit.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer by submitting that the said transaction is barred by the doctrine of lis pendens as the disputed land was purchased by the petitioners during pendency of the trial. He has submitted that the sale deed is of 04.06.2019, whereas the suit was filed on 04.04.2019. He has also submitted that for that transaction the leave of the court was not obtained. He has relied upon the decision of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb reported in 2004 AIR Supreme Court 173 and Ankita Kuwar & Ors. vs.. Chandra Bhushan Singh & Ors. as reported in 2010 AIR (Pat) 5.

7. In Bibi Zubaida Khatoon’s case (supra), in paragraph No. 9, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as follows.—

“It is not disputed that the present petitioner purchased the property during pendencey of the suit and without seeking leave of the court as required by S.52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner being a transferee pendente lite without leave of the court cannot, as of right, seek impleadment as a party in the suits which are long pending since 1983. It is true that when the application for joinder based on transfer pendente lite is made, the transferee should ordinarily be joined as party to enable him to protect his interest. But in instant case, the trial court has assigned cogent reasons for rejecting such joinder stating that the suit is long pending since 1983 and prima facie the action of the alienation does not appear to be bona fide. The trial court saw an attempt on the part of the petitioner to complicate and delay the pending suits.”

8. Similar view has been taken by this court in Anita Kuwar’s Case.

9. By relying upon the decision reported in (2010) SCC volume 7 page 417 Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt Ltd and others, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners may be proper party, but they are not the necessary party as such the discretion given to the trial court under Order 1 Rule 10 for adding or deleting any party is not required to be applied in the present circumstances.

10. It is undisputed that the petitioner is transferee pendente lite and his vendor has already been impleaded as defendant. As he is a transferee pendente lite, without the leave of the court he cannot claim to be impleaded as a matter of right.

11. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has stepped into the shoes of his vendor, but since his vendor has already been impleaded, the rights of the petitioner shall be taken care of by his