Liberal consideration of pendente lite purchaser's application for impleadment and the necessity of impleading transferee pendente lite as a party-defendant.

Suneet Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Arvind Srivastava assisted by Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The defendant/petitioner has approached this Court challenging the orders dated 28.04.2014 passed by the District Judge, Varanasi in Civil Revision No. 86 of 2014, Ram Bilas v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi and others, and order dated 20.01.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), City, Varanasi in Original Suit No. 8 of 1980, Nand Kishore and others v. Ram Bilas and others, allowing the impleadment of respondent nos. 1 to 3.

3. The plaintiff/respondents instituted suit No. 8 of 1980, Nand Kishore and others v. Ram Bilas and others, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession. Interim injunction was granted on 11.05.1981. Respondent no. 4 during the pendency of suit, transferred the property to the respondent nos. 1 to 3 on 14.05.2013, the transferee pendente lite moved an application for impleadment as plaintiff being bonafide purchaser of the suit property to which objections was filed by the petitioner. The trial court allowed the application which was challenged in revision. The revisional court dismissed the revision on merits as well as on maintainability.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision against the order allowing the impleadment application is maintainable and in support of his submission he has relied upon K.S.M. Basheer Mohammad and Sons v. Ram Bali Singh and others and the court below had wrongly relied upon the judgment in Commandant, A.P. Special Police (IR), Cuddapah v. B. Shankar Naik, JT 2003 (4) SC 268. It is contended that the suit property has been transferred in violation of the injunction order and the plaintiff earlier in 1990 had transferred the property.

5. In rebuttal, Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he is bonafide purchaser and sale deed is not void and the applicants/petitioner had sought impleadment as plaintiff and not as the defendant as the petitioner has apprehension that the interest of the petitioner will be sub served by the original plaintiff. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and others, (2013) 5 SC 397.

In A Nawab John and others v. V.N. Subramaniyam, [(2012) 7 SCC 738], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a pendente lite purchaser's application for impleadment should normally be allowed or "considered liberally". The paragraph 22 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as follows:-

"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"."

In Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that transferee pendente lite is a necessary and proper party and should be impleaded. Paragraph 54 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as follows:-

"54. The third dimension which arises for consideration is about the right of a transferee pendente lite to seek addition as a party-defendant to the suit under Order 1Rule 10 C.P.C. I have no hesitation in concurring with the view that no one other than the parties to an agreement to sell is a necessary and proper party to a suit. The decisions of this Court have elaborated that aspect sufficiently making any further elucidation unnecessary. The High Court has understood and applied the legal propositions correctly while dismissing the application of the appellant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. What must all the same be addressed is whether the prayer made by the appellant could be allowed under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC.......................It is true that the application which the appellant made was only under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC but the enabling provision of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC could always be invoked if the fact situation