Back
ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Kishan Kumar Bhagat @ Kishan Kumar Son of Shiv Nath Bhagat – Appellant
Versus
Ram Dayal Prasad – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated 11.04.2018, passed in Title Suit No. 28 of 2010, by which the learned Sub Judge-III, Danapur, has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for his impleadment in the suit as defendant. The case of the petitioner is that the original plaintiff of the suit, namely, Sona Devi, sold a piece of land to one Satish Kumar, bearing plot no. 1089, khata no. 288, having an area of 08 decimals on 09.11.2009. The purchaser, Satish Kumar, in turn, sold the said piece of land in favour of the petitioner on 15.01.2010, by virtue of a registered sale deed. Sona Devi filed the aforesaid suit on 06.02.2010 for a declaration that the sale deed is null, void and inoperative and is not binding upon the plaintiff.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff, Sona Devi, died and she was substituted by her three sons, out of which two sons have joined as plaintiffs and the third son has been made defendant on the basis of the fact that he has executed a rectification deed in favour of Satish Kumar, rectifying the plot no. 1089
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for the continuation of a suit by or against a person to whom....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order XXII Rule 10 and Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in allowing the impleadment of the petitioner as de....
A subsequent transferee with a registered sale deed must be allowed to protect her interests in ongoing litigation, demonstrating both necessity and direct interest in the subject matter.
While considering a petition under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC for addition of party, court is to satisfy itself that person who is sought to be added as party ought to have been joined as a party.
Impleading purchasers as plaintiffs requires their consent; original plaintiffs cannot compel unwilling parties to pursue abandoned litigation.
Procedural laws must be followed for party impleadment, but they should not obstruct the administration of substantive justice.
Impleadment of a third party must be necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the suit issues, and should not enlarge the scope of the suit or divert the issue from biparti to tri party.
A pendente lite purchaser can be impleaded in a suit, and the original party's failure to seek leave does not affect the suit's validity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
