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.

JUDGMENT

1. Learned counsel to take steps relating to respondent nos. 2 and 16 which are said to have expired.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the application has been moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the respondent Nos. 1 and 10 alone, the service on the remaining respondents may be dispensed with.

3 .Accordingly, the requirement of service on the remaining respondents is dispensed with at this stage.

4. Another application has been moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the subsequent purchaser as a party to the present proceedings. Reply has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 10 and it is stated that as the subsequent purchaser would be bound by the decision of the suit between the parties and he is not a necessary party, therefore, in terms of Order 22 Rule 10, he need not be impleaded as a party to the suit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a purchaser of a suit property, would not make a sale void or voidable because of the pendency of the suit and subsequent purchaser would be always bound by the decision of the suit. In view thereof, he is not a necessary party.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that notice is required to be given to the subsequent purchaser of the pendency of the suit and therefore, the plaintiff has in his wisdom moved this application for impleading the subsequent purchaser also.

9. I have considered the submissions.

8. In case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs Jai Prakash University and others reported in 2001 (6) SCC 534, it was held as under:

"24. The exercise of powers under Section 47 of the Code is microscopic and lies in a very narrow inspection hole. Thus it is plain that executing Court can allow objection under section 47 of the Code to the executability of the decree if it is found that the same is void ab initio and nullity, apart from the ground that decree is not capable of execution under law either because the same was passed in ignorance of such a provision of law or the law was promulgated making a decree in executable after its passing. In the case on hand, the decree was passed against the governing body of the College which was defendant without seeking leave of the Court to continue the suit against the University upon whom the interest of the original defendant devolved and impleading it. Such an omission would not make the decree void ab initio so as to invoke application of Section 47 of the Code and entail dismissal of execution. The validity or otherwise of a decree may be challenged by filing a properly constituted suit or taking any other remedy available under law on the ground that original defendant absented himself from the proceeding of the suit after appearance as it had no longer any interest in the subject of dispute or did not purposely take interest in the proceeding or colluded with the adversary or any other ground permissible under law.

26. The plain language of Rule 10 referred to above does not suggest that leave can be sought by that person alone upon whom the interest has devolved. It simply says that the suit may be continued by the person upon whom such an interest has devolved and this applies in a case where the interest of plaintiff has devolved. Likewise, in a case where interest of defendant has devolved, the suit may be continued against such a person upon whom interest has devolved, but in either eventuality, for continuance of the suit against the persons upon whom the interest has devolved during the pendency of the suit, leave of the court has to be obtained. If it is laid down that leave can be obtained by that person alone upon whom interest of party to the suit has devolved during its pendency, then there may be preposterous results as such a party might not be knowing about the litigation and consequently not feasible for him to apply for leave and if a duty is cast upon him then in such an eventuality he would be bound by the decree even in cases of fai