A lis pendens transferee holds rights to continue litigation under CPC provisions, reinforcing their standing even if not formally added as a party.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.Baug, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. Present CMP is directed against impugned order dated 17^th May 2025 of learned Senior Civil Judge (L.R.Court), Bhubaneswar passed in C.S. No.25 of 2007. The suit was filed by one Shyamsundar Hans who died on 7^th August 2024. During pendency of the suit said Shyamsundar Hans, as the Plaintiff, sold the suit land in favour of present Petitioner vide R.S.D. dated 24^th August 2020. All the Defendants in the civil suit were set ex-parte much before the death of the plaintiff. They also do not appear before this court in present CMP.

3. Upon death of the sole-Plaintiff, present Petitioner who claims to be the lis pendense purchaser of the suit property filed a petition under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 146 of the CPC to step into the footing of the Plaintiff to continue the suit. Said prayer of the Petitioner being rejected vide impugned order dated 17^th May 2025 under Annexure-5, the same is challenged in present CMP.

4. As stated earlier, all the Defendants have been set Ex-parte much prior to the death of the Plaintiff. There is no one to object the contention of the present Petitioner that he purchased the suit land by execution of registered sale deed dated 24^th August 2020 during pendency of the suit. A plain reading of the provisions under Order 22 Rule 10 reveals the right of assignment created during pendency of the suit gives the right to continue the lis with liberty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Sardari Lal & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 601 have explained the principles of under Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 146 of the CPC as follows:-

5. “The doctrine of lis pendens expressed in the maxim “ut lite pendente nihil innovetur” (during a litigation nothingnew should be introduced) has been statutorily incorporated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A defendant cannot, by alienating property during the pendency of litigation, venture into depriving the successful plaintiff of the fruits of the decree. The transferee pendente lite is treated in the eye of the law as a representative-in-interest of the judgment-debtor and held bound by the decree passed against the judgment-debtor though neither has the defendant chosen to bring the transferee on record by apprising his opponent and the court of the transfer made by him nor has the transferee chosen to come on record by taking recourse to Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. In case of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of any suit, Order 22 Rule 10 CPC confers a discretion on the court hearing the suit to grant leave for the person in or upon whom such interest has come to vest or devolve to be brought on record. Bringing of a lis pendens transferee on record is not as of right but in the discretion of the court. Though not brought on record the lis pendens transferee remains bound by the decree.

xxx xxx xxx

8. A lis pendens transferee from the defendant, though not arrayed as a party in the suit, is still a person claiming under the defendant. The same principle of law is recognized in a different perspective by Rule 16 of Order 21 CPC which speaks of transfer or assignment inter vivos or by operation of law made by the plaintiff decree- holder. The transferee may apply for execution of the decree of the court which passed it and the decree will beavailable for execution in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the application were made by the decree-holder. It is interesting to note that a provision like Section 146 CPC was not to be found in the preceding Code and was for the first time incorporated in CPC of 1908. In Or