A transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject-matter of a suit is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest and has a right to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings.

Third Party who filed an impleadment application as LA. No. 21 of 1999 in OS. No. 292 of 1983 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, is the revision petitioner. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in that suit.

2. 7th defendant in the suit sold the property Plot No. 6 with buildings to the petitioner on 23-12-1991. It is the case of the petitioner herein that 7th defendant purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 4-7-1983 from its original owner S.R. Krishnasamy Iyangar (first defendant in the suit). After purchase, petitioner herein | has put up further constructions. It is her case that at the time when she purchased the property, she was not aware of the litigation. It is said that her vendors did not inform her about the alleged grant of patta in favour of plaintiff-Temple under Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 She beings a bona fide purchaser for value without notice during the pendency of the suit, she should be impleaded in the suit.

3. Counter affidavit was filed contending that the sale deed in favour of both Marudhachalam and petitioner herein are hit by the principle of lis pendens and, therefore, petitioner herein is not a necessary party, and she need not be impleaded. The suit has already been instituted against proper and necessary parties. Therefore, the presence of the petitioner herein is not necessary.

4. By the impugned order, the lower Court dismissed the application holding that the application is belated, and also on the ground that the sale in favour of petitioner herein is hit by the principle of lis pendens.

5. Respondent had also entered appearance through Counsel, and, therefore, by consent of learned Counsel on both sides, I heard the Revision itself for final disposal, at the time when it came up for admission.

6. According to me, the order of the lower Court is not correct in view of a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (1999) 2 SCC 577 1999 3 L.W. 277 ( Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gprakhpur and others ), wherein a similar question has been considered by their Lordships. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the judgment are relevant for our purpose and they read thus:—

“Order I, Rule 10, CPC, enables the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code.”

In Khimchand Shankar Choudhari v. Vishnu Hari Patil this Court held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject-matter of a suit is a representative in the interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest and has a right to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The Court has taken note of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and as well as the provisions of Rule 10 of Order 13, CPC. The Court said: (SCC p. 21, Para 6)

“It may be that if he does not apply to be impleaded, he may suffer by default on account of any order passed in the proceedings. But if he applies to be impleaded as a party and to be heard, he has got to be so impleaded and heard.”

In Ramesh Hirachand Kumdammal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay this Court discussed the matter at length and held that though the plaintiff is a “dominus litus” and not bound to sue every possible adverse claimant in the same suit, the Court may at any stage of the suit direct addition of parties and generally it is a matter of judicial discretion which is to be exercised in “view of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The Court said: (SCC p. 529, Para 8)”

7. The case really turns on the true construction of the rule in particular the meaning of the words “whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and compl