A transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in a suit to protect their interest, and the trial court erred in dismissing the application for impleadment.

JUDGMENT :

(Arun Kumar Jha, J.)

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 9.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 08.09.2016 in Title Suit No. 64 of 2011 passed by learned Sub Judge-06, Araria whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “the Code”) has been rejected.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs/respondents Ist set has filed the Title Suit No. 64 of 2011 for the following reliefs:

“a) Let it be decreed and decreed and declared that Schedule A of the suit land is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs.

(b) Let it be decreed and declared that the ancestors of the plaintiffs and thereafter the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit land having valid right, title and interest thereon.

(c) Let it be decreed and declared that the schedule "B" of the suit land is the part and parcel of schedule "A" of the suit land and Schedule "B" of the suit land has been carved out, out of the schedule "A" of the suit land.

(d) Let it be adjudicated that Schedule "B" of the suit land being the part and parcel of Schedule "A" of the suit land legally belong to the plaintiffs who are the real owners of the suit land.

(e) Let it be further decreed and declared that entry during R.S.Operation in the name of the ancestors of the defendant nos.1 to 4 and defendants nos. 5 to 9 and defendant nos. 10 to 12 are not inconsonance with the recorded C.S. tenants of schedule "A" land and they were in no way concerned to the C.S. recorded tenants nor they were related to the C.S. recorded tenants. Hence the entry in their names is not binding on the plaintiffs and accordingly defendant concerned have got no manner of concern with the suit land.

(f) Let it be decreed and declared on adjudication of the above reliefs that schedule "B" of the suit land which is part and parcel of the schedule "A" of the suit land exclusively and legally belong to the plaintiffs and not belong to defendants no.1 to 12.

(g) If during the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs are found dispossessed from the suit land by the defendant nos. 1 to 12, in that case the plaintiffs be put in possession over the suit land after recovery of possession.

(h) Let the defendants no.1 to 12 be restrained by way of permanent injunction not to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land and not to dispose off the suit land during the pendency of the suit.”

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is the purchaser of 2.16 acre of suit property from defendant nos. 8 and 9 during pendency of the suit. Even the claim of the defendant nos. 8 & 9 are only to the extent of 2.16 acre of land and whole of their interest has been purchased by the petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submits that despite this fact, the learned trial court rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for impleadment on the ground that the suit property has been purchased during pendency of the suit and defendant nos. 8 & 9 have been contesting the suit and the intervenor has failed to bring any material on the record to show that suit is in collusion. The learned trial court further held that the interest of the petitioner is well protected through the vendors who are defendants in the case.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is not sustainable as the same is against the settled principles of law. The learned senior counsel referred to paragraph nos. 16, 17 and 18 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon and Anr., reported in AIR 2005 SC 2209 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he ha