Back
1995 JLJ 178
S.K. Dubey, J.
Kamta Prasad and another v. Smt. Vidyawati and others
Civil Revn. No. 163 of 1992; against the order passed by 4th Additional
Judge to the District Judge, Bhind, in Civil Suit No. 5-A of 1990,
Decided on 3.5.1994.
(2) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S. 52 -- purchaser pendente lite -- is bound by the decree to be passed -- justice requires to give him opportunity to protect his right -- should be allowed to join the suit if comes with due diligence. AIR 1958 SC 394 followed. 1966 JLJ 32 relied on. [Paras 6 & 7
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 22 R. 10 -- any action of transferor after sale -- is an action by the person having no title or Interest in the suit property -- application of transferee to implead him in the suit should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 1980 JLJ 738 and 1991 JLJ 138 relied on. [Para 9
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 1 R. 10 (2) and O. 22 R. 10 -- it is within the discretion of Court to add any interested party for completely setting all questions involved -- Court can do so even suo motu -- transferee pendente lite -- may even apply to be joined at appellate stage. AIR 1963 SC 786 and AIR 1983 SC 271 followed. [Paras 11 & 13
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 4 R. 1, O. 6 R. 17 and O. 20 R. 3 -- suit commences from presentation of plaint under O. 4 R. 1 -- Court keeps seisin over suit till pronouncement of judgment under O. 20 R. 3 -- expression "at any stage of proceedings" under O. 7 R. 17 -- includes the stage of pronouncement of judgment. AIR 1964 SC 993 distinguished. AIR 1981 MP 228, 1993 MPLJ 607 and 1993 (II) MPWN 79 relied on. [Para 14
(6) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 1 R. 10, O.22 R. 10 and O.20 R. 3 -- transferee pendente lite applied to be joined at the stage of pronouncement of judgment -suit for partition -- addition of parties can be made at any time before the final decree.
The trial Court has rejected the application merely on the ground that the case was reserved for pronouncing the judgment, but did not consider that the purchaser pendente lite will be vitally affected by the decree which may ultimately be passed against the defendants who have even not filed their written statements and transferred the property and executed the sale-deed without disclosing the fact about the pendency of the suit. The trial Court also did not consider that as the suit was for declaration and partition of the share, a preliminary decree will be passed declaring the rights of the parties interested in the property under order XX, rule 18, sub-clause (2), CPC and thereafter, a final decree will have to be passed after hearing the parties. Therefore, the contention of Shri Roman that under order 1, rule 10, CPC, the addition of parties to the suit can be made at any time before the final decree; the trial Court without considering this aspect of the matter and the fact that by addition, the substantial justice will be done between parties, has rejected the application, in the opinion of this Court, is right. [Para 15
(7) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 9 R. 7 -- case reserved for judgment -- presiding Judge transferred -- case is reopened for arguments -- provisions for setting aside ex parte order under -- becomes applicable in such situation. AIR 1964 SC 993 distinguished. 1965 MPLJ SN 74, 1981 (I) MPWN 123, 1981 (I) MPWN 56 and C.R.No. 112/84 relied on. [Para 16
(8) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 22 R. 10, O. 43 R. 1 (1) and S. 115 -- application under O. 22 R. 10 dismissed -- miscellaneous appeal lies under O. 43 R. 1 (1) d`revision petition may be converted into such appeal. [Para 17
¼1½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 52 && fopkjk/khu okn dk fl)kar && dsoy okn ds i{kdkjksa dks gh ugha] okndkyhu Øsrkvksa dks Hkh vkc)dkj gS && mica/k }kjk ,slk foØ; laiw.kZr% jÌ ugha gksrk fdarq okn esa ikfjr gksus okyh fMØh ij vk/kfjr vf/kdkj ds v/khuLFk gks tkrk gSA , vkb vkj 1956 ,l lh 593 vuqlfjrA 1982 ts ,y ts 132 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 5À
¼2½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 52 && okndkyhu Øsrk && ikfjr gksus okyh fMØh ls vkc) gS && U;k; dh mis{kk gS fd mls vius vf/kdkj dh j{kk dk volj fn;k tk, && okn esa la;ksftr gksuk vuqKkr djuk pkfg, ;fn og lE;d~ rRijrkiwoZd vkrk gSA , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 394 vuqlfjrA 196 ts ,y ts 32 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 6 rFkk 7À
¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 22 fu- 10 && varj.kdrkZ dh foØ; ds i‘pkr~ dksbZ dkjZokbZ && ,sls O;fDr }kjk dkjZokbZ gSA ftldk okn laifÙk esa dksbZ gd ;k fgr ugha gS && varfjrh }kjk mls okn esa la;ksftr fd, tkus dk vkosnu] dkjZokb;ksa dh la[;k c<+us ds fy,] eatwj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A 1980 ts ,y ts 738 rFkk 1991 ts ,y ts 138 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼4½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 1 fu- 10¼2½ && rFkk vk- 22 fu- 10 && ;g U;k;ky; ds foosdkf/kdkj esa gS fd varoZfyr leLr iz‘u iw.kZr% fofuf‘pr djus ds fy, fgrc) i{kdkj dks la;ksftr djs && U;k;ky; ,slk Loizsj.kk ls Hkh dj ldrk gS && okndkyhu varfjrh && vihyh izØe ij Hkh la;ksftr fd, tkus ds fy, vkosnu dj ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 786 rFkk , vkb vkj 1983 ,l lh 271 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 11 rFkk 13À
¼5½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 4 fu- 1] vk- 6 fu- 17 rFkk vk- 20 fu- 3 && okn] vk- 4 fu- 1 ds v/khu okni= izLrqr djus ls izkjaHk gksrk gS && vk- 20 fu- 3 ds v/khu fu.kZ; lquk, tkus rd okn U;k;ky; ds fof/kd dCts esa jgrk gS && vk- 6 fu- 17 ds v/khu vfHkO;fDr **dk;Zokfg;ksa ds fdlh Hkh izØe esa** && esa fu.kZ; lquk, tkus dk izØe Hkh lfEefyr gSA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 993 izHksfnrA , vkb vkj 1981 e/; izns‘k 228] ,e ih ,y ts 607 rFkk 1993 ¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 79 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 14À
¼6½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 1 fu- 10] vk- 22 fu- 10 rFkk vk- 20 fu- 3 && okndkyhu varfjrh ds fu.kZ; lquk, tkus ds izØe ij la;ksftr fd, tkus ds fy, vkosnu fd;k && okn foHkktu ds fy, && i{kdkj vafre fMØh ds iwoZ fdlh le; Hkh tksMs+ tk ldrs gSA
fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vkosnu ek= bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;k gS fd ekey fu.kZ; lquk, tkus ds fy, vkjf{kr fd;k x;k Fkk] fdarq bl ckr ij fopkj ugha fd;k fd okndkyhu Øsrk fMØh ls ekfeZd :i ls izHkkfor gksxk tks varr% izR;FkhZx.k ds fo#) ikfjr gksxh ftUgksaus vius fyf[kr dFku rd Qkby ugha fd, gS vkSj okn yafcr gksus dk rF; izdV fd, fcuk laifÙk dk varj.k dk fn;k rFkk foØ; foys[k fu"ikfnr dj fn;kA fopkj.k U;k;ky; us bl ckr ij Hkh fopkj ugha fd;k fd D;ksafd okn] va‘k dh ?kks"k.kk vkSj foHkktu ds fy, Fkk] flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vk- 20 fu- 18 ds mi[kaM ¼2½ ds v/khu laifÙk esa fgrc) i{kdkjksa ds vf/kdkjksa dh ?kks"k.kk djrs gq, izkjafHkd fMØh ikfjr dh tk,xh vkSj rRi‘pkr~ i{kdkjksa dh lquokbZ djus ds i‘pkr~ vafre fMØh ikfjr dh tkuk gksxhA blfy,] Jh jkseu dh izfrfojks/k fd okn esa vafre fMØh ds iwoZ fdlh Hkh le; flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vk- 1 fu- 10 ds v/khu i{kdkjksa dk la;kstu fd;k tk ldrk gS( fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ekeys ds bl igys ij vkSj bl rF; ij fd i{kdkjksa ds chp lkjoku~ U;k; gksxk] fopkj fd, fcuk vkosnu [kkfjt dj fn;k] bl U;k;ky; dh jk; esa lgh gSA
¼7½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 9 fu- 7 && ekeyk fu.kZ; ds fy, vkjf{kr && ihBklhu U;k;k/kh‘k LFkkukarfjr && ekeyk cgl ds fy, iqu% [kqyk gS && ,di{kh; vkns‘k vikLr fd, tkus dk mica/k && ,slh fLFkfr esa ykxw gks tkrk gSA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 993 izHksfnrA 1965 ,e ih ,y ts ,l ,u 74] 1981¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 56 rFkk fl-iq-Ø- 112@84 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 16À
¼8½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 22 fu- 10] vk- 43 fu- 1 ¼B½ rFkk /kkjk 115 && vk- 22 fu- 10 ds v/khu vkosnu [kkfjt && izdh.kZ vihy vk- 43 fu- 1 ¼B½ ds v/khu gksxh && iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk ,slh vihy esa ifjofrZr dh tk ldrh gSA ¿ iSjk 17À
1. This revision is by the pendente lite purchasers against the order dated 30.6.1992, passed in Civil Suit No. 5-Aof 1990 by the Fourth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhind, whereby the applica tion of the petitioners under Order 1, rule 10, CPC and under Order XXII, rule 10, CPC was dismissed.
2. The necessary facts giving rise to this petition are these. The plaintiff respondent No.1 and the defendants -- respondents No.2 and 3, are the members of the one family. The plaintiff instituted a suit for partition and injunction and for possession of her share in agricultural land and a house. After notice the defendants appeared in the suit and sought time for filing written statement and for that the case was adjourned from time to time. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.2, Ramdulare executed two sale-deeds on 18.9.1991 in favour of the petitioners, transferring 11 Bighas and 6 Biswas which was part of the suit land of 17 Bighas, 16 Biswas, situated at village Khuri, District Bhind. Out of the two sale-deeds, one was for Rs. 87, 000/- and another was for Rs. 35, 500/-. After execution of the sale-deeds and transfer of the part of the suit land, the defendants absented themselves in the suit. The trial Court proceeded ex parte and closed the hearing after recording evidence on 11.3.1992 and fixed the case for pronouncing judgment on 14.3.1992. The petitioners having come to know that a suit is pending and the judgment is not pronounced, applied on 22.4.1992 for impleding them as a party as defendants, have transferred their interest and the petitioners are vitally interested in the judgment which may ultimately be passed. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. The trial Court rejected the application stating that as the hearing is closed and the case is fixed for pronouncement of the judgment and also held that the petitioners are not necessary parties to the suit. Hence, this revision.
3. Shri Roman, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners are the purchasers pendente lite, but the petitioners were not having any knowledge of pending litigation, the vendors have received full consideration without disclosing the fact of pendency of the suit, thereafter, the defendants having no interest, chose to remain ex parte so that if any decree is passed it is the petitioners who had to suffer as they will be bound by the proceedings or the decree which may ultimately be passed in the suit. Therefore, even if the hearing was closed in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petitioners to be impleaded suo motu as a party to the suit, particularly when the suit is for declaration and possession for half of the shars of the plaintiffs in the suit land with the defendant No.2, the mother of the defendant No.1, even if the judgment is pronounced, a preliminary decree will be passed which will not be final. If the petitioners are not allowed to be impleaded as party, neither the petitioners can file an application under Order IX, rule 13, CPC to set aside ex parte decree nor they can appeal and thus they will be deprived of the valuable land which will cause a great injustice to the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, Shri V.S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, raised a preliminary objection that the application for impleading as a party was virtually an application under Order XXII, rule 10, CPC, for grant of leave of the Court to continue that suit on devolution of interest which was refused. Against such an order of refusing to grant leave under Order XXII, rule 10, CPC, an appeal lies under Order XLIII, rule 1 (l), CPC and not a revision under Section 115, CPC. On merits, it was contended that as the hearing in the case was closed and the case was posted for pronouncing judgment, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar (AIR 1964 SC 993), the applic
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
