JUDGMENT

1. Suit 196/1996 (later renumbered as Suit No. 226/2018) was instituted by the petitioner Ralia Ram Kapoor (deceased) ('RRK' hereinafter) through his legal representatives against M/s DLF United Pvt. Ltd. (DLF) as Defendant 1 and Vijay Kapoor, the son of Ralia Ram Kapoor, as Defendant 2. It was averred, in the plaint forming subject matter of Suit 196/1996, that RRK was the owner, and in legal possession of Plot No. S-103, Greater Kailash-II which had been purchased by him from DLF, against payments made between 1959 and 1973. It was further averred in the plaint that though payment against purchase of the aforesaid property was thus made by RRK, a sale deed, dated 11th February 1974 was fraudulently executed by DLF. Fraud in execution of the said sale deed was also alleged in the plaint. The plaint, therefore, sought cancellation of the sale deed dated 11th February 1974 and also sought a direction to DLF to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, by incorporating the name of the petitioner in place of Defendant 2 Vijay Kapoor.

2. During the pendency of the suit, Respondent 1 Kiran Kapoor, the wife of Vijay Kapoor (Defendant 2 in the suit) moved an application under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 and Section 146 of the CPC, seeking to be impleaded in the suit in place of Defendant 2 Vijay Kapoor. The application was predicated on a Gift Deed dated 24th November 2009, whereby Vijay Kapoor was stated to have gifted the suit property to his wife Kiran Kapoor, i.e. the applicant before the learned Civil Judge and Respondent 2 in the present proceedings. Kiran Kapoor therefore, contended that Vijay Kapoor was left with no right, title or interest in the suit property and that she had become the absolute owner thereof.

3. Inasmuch as the gift deed had been executed pendente lite, during the currency of Suit 226/2018, Kiran Kapoor sought her impleadment as Defendant 2 in place of Vijay Kapoor, under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC.

4. The learned Civil Judge has, vide the impugned order dated 13th July 2022, allowed the aforenoted application of Kiran Kapoor under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. Reliance has been placed, by the learned Civil Judge, in so holding, on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon1 and the judgments of this Court in Rajwanti Phogat v. Gian 1 (2005) 11 SCC 403 Chand Sethi, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12829 and Ashok K. Chauhan v. Ch. Financial Services Inc. Panama, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2263.

5. Accordingly, the learned Civil Judge impleaded Kiran Kapoor as an additional defendant in addition to the already existing defendants.

6. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, at the instance of the legal representatives of RRM, assails the afore-noted order dated 13th July 2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge insofar as it allows the impleadment of Kiran Kapoor as an additional defendant in Suit 226/2018.

7. Mr. Tushar Mahajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vociferously opposed the impugned order. He submits that the entire exercise of the execution of the gift deed and the filing of the application by Kiran Kapoor seeking impleadment in the suit, was orchestrated and malafide. He draws attention in this context, to the gap of time that had ensued between filing of the suit in 1996, execution of the gift deed on 24th November 2009 and filing of the application by Kiran Kapoor under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC on 22nd January 2018. In such circumstances, Mr. Mahajan submits that the bonafides of the gift deed as well as of the application filed by Kiran Kapoor become clearly suspect. Where such transfer of the suit property pendente lite is not bonafide, Mr. Mahajan submits, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb, (2004) 1 SCC 191 that the transferee pendente lite is not entitled to be impleaded in the suit. For this purpose, Mr. Mahajan has also placed reliance