ORDER

27.10.2009 — The order of the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Bhubaneswar, dated 03.03.2008, passed in C.S. No. 120 of 2003, rejecting the petitioner’s application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 C.P.C., is under challenge in the present writ application.

The facts, giving rise to the present writ application is that the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 filed C.S. No. 120 of 2003 in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhuba¬neswar, against the defendant-opposite party no.2, for eviction, recovery of arrear rent and mesne profit. During the pendency of the civil suit, the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 sold her right, title and interest in the suit property to the present petitioner by registered sale deeds dated 16.06.2004. After the sale of the suit property, as the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 did not pursue the civil suit in the right earnest and as the present petitioner, being a lis pendens transferee had vital interest in the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC for being impleaded as plaintiff in the civil suit. The said application was objected to by the defendant-opposite party no. 2, though no objection was raised by the plaintiff-opposite party no.1.

Learned Trial Court taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiff has sold the suit property during the pendency of the civil suit without obtaining permission of the court and as the sale deeds executed in favour of the present petitioner has not been acted upon and that the sale of the suit property in favour of the present petitioner is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens provided under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (in short “T,P. Act”), proceeded to hold that the petitioner is neither a proper party nor a necessary party and accordingly rejected its application for being impleaded as party to the civil suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the peti¬tioner has purchased the suit property from the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 by registered sale deeds dated 16.06.2004, on payment of valuable consideration, he has a vital interest in the civil suit and therefore he is a proper party to the proceeding. It is further submitted that the plaintiff having sold the suit property to the present petitioner, the plaintiff is not taking proper steps and not pursuing the civil suit and therefore, the petitioner being the lis pendens transferee having right, title and interest over the suit property, he should have been implead¬ed as a party to the proceeding, so as to enable him to protect its interest in the suit. It is also submitted that as the plain¬tiff is a dominus litis of the suit and no objection having been raised by the plaintiff to the application of the present peti¬tioner for being impleaded as a party to the civil suit, the impugned order of rejection is not proper and justified.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his conten¬tion has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Vs. Pravat Chandra Chatterjee and Ors. AIR 1992 Orissa 47, wherein a similar case, while con¬sidering the rights of a lis pendens transferee to be impleaded as a party in a pending suit, this Court observed that a trans¬feree pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant, is vitally interested in the litigation, whether the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant, the latter having no more interest in the property, may not properly defend the suit and may collude with the plaintiff. Order 22, Rule 10(1) CPC enables such a lis pendens transferee to continue the suit with the leave of the court and though there is no bar operating against the transferror continuing the suit for the benefit of the transferee, Order 22, Rule 10 CPC is an alterna¬tive procedure which safeguards against the danger that the original plaintiff being no longer interested in the