Back
2015 Supreme(Jhk) 244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
Sanjay Jaiswal & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Mahendra Singh – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 209 of 2014
Decided on : 03.02.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Gupta, Ms. Niyati Sah
For the Respondent: Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha
Purchasers pendente lite can be impleaded in a suit for specific performance, and their addition may be necessary to avoid legal complications.
Headnote:
Order - Application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. - Impleadment of purchaser pendente lite in a suit for specific performance - The court allowed the application under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. and set aside the impugned order rejecting the application, holding that the petitioners were proper parties in the title appeal and their addition was necessary to avoid legal complications.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement, which was dismissed. The petitioners purchased the suit property and filed a separate suit for ejectment of the respondent. They later sought to be impleaded in the title appeal, which was rejected by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were proper parties in the title appeal and their addition was necessary to avoid legal complications. The impugned order rejecting the application was set aside, and the application under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. was allowed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, as purchasers pendente lite, should be impleaded in the title appeal for specific performance of the sale agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents and observed that a pendente lite purchaser should be given an opportunity to protect their rights, and a transferee pendente lite can be added as a party if their interest in the subject matter of the suit is substantial. The court also noted that the petitioners' addition was necessary to avoid legal complications.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the application under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. was allowed. The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioners were impleaded as respondents in the title appeal.
Aggrieved by order dated 03.01.2014 in Title Appeal No. 58 of 2010 whereby, the application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. preferred by the petitioners has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent-Mahendra Singh filed Title Suit No. 82 of 2002 seeking specific performance of agreement dated 04.07.1992 and 28.12.2000 which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.04.2010, against which he preferred Title Appeal No. 58 of 2010. The said Title Appeal was filed on 12.05.2010. The present petitioners purchased suit property vide registered sale-deed dated 17.05.2010 from Pratima Chatterjee @ Benu Chatterjee who was defendant in Title Suit No. 82 of 2002. In the Title Appeal No. 58 of 2010, the vendor of the petitioners namely, Pratima Chatterjee @ Benu Chatterjee appeared and filed her written statement on 10.08.2010. After purchasing property, the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 540 of 2010 seeking ejectment of the appellant-Mahendra Singh from the suit property. In the said suit, the appellant-respondent has appeared and filed written statement on 12.12.2011. When the petitioners came to know about the Title Appeal No. 58 of 2010, they preferred application dated 08.03.2013 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. which has been rejected by the Trial Court. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a purchaser pendente lite is entitled for his impleadment in a suit for specific performance of sale agreement in respect of property which he has purchased. It is further submitted that in every case a transfer pendente lite is not void but remains valid, subject to the result of the suit and therefore, the petitioners can defend the right flowing from the sale-deed.
5. As against the above, Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that admittedly, the petitioners were not parties in the suit and at the appellate stage they cannot be permitted to be joined as party. It is further submitted that the petitioners have filed Title Suit No. 540 of 2010 and therefore, their intervention in Title Appeal No. 58 of 2010 is only intended at delaying the disposal of the appeal preferred by the respondent. In part performance of the agreement dated 04.07.1992 and 28.12.2000, the respondent has been put in possession of the suit property however, during the continuance of the present litigation sale-deed dated 17.05.2010 has been executed in favour of the petitioners which is hit by lis pendens .
6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
7. The issue whether purchaser pendente lite should be impleaded as party in a suit for specific performance in which he has interest in immovable property, is no more res integra. In “Saila Bala Dassi Vs. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and another”, reported in AIR 1958 SC 394, it has been observed that, “a pendente lite purchaser should be given an opportunity to protect his rights”. In “Amit Kumar Shaw and another Vs. Farida Khatoon and another”, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 403, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, “A transferee pendente lite can be added as party if his interest in the subject matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral”. In “A. Nawab John and others Vs. V.N. Subramaniyam” reported in (2012) 7 SCC 738, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus;
22. “The preponderance of opinion of this Court is that a pendente lite purchaser's application for impleadment should normally be allowed or “considered liberally”.
8. The aforesaid view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated in “Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors Private Limited and Others” reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397.
9. From the judgments noticed above, it is apparent that the petitioners are proper party in the title appeal. Their
