Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DEVAN M. DESAI, J.
Viruben Chaturbhai Korat & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Decd. Prataprai Harishankar Rajyaguru S/o Harishankar Rajyaguru Through Lhrs & Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 15660 of 2021 With Special Civil Application No. 16043 of 2021
Decided On : 28-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Hriday Buch Advocate with Mr Nishant Lalakiya
For the Respondent: Mr Het N Shah(11211), Mr Virat G Popat(3710), Mr. HJ Karathiya(7012)

A transferee pendente lite is not an automatic necessary or proper party in a specific performance suit. Impleadment is discretionary, requiring the court to record reasons demonstrating that the proposed party's presence is essential for the effective and complete adjudication of the existing controversy.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10(2) - Specific Performance - Impleadment of Parties - Transferee pendente lite - A person seeking impleadment must establish that they are either a necessary or a proper party for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. Mere purchase of property during the pendency of proceedings does not grant an automatic right to be impleaded. The court must exercise its discretion judiciously, ensuring the presence of the applicant is essential for the resolution of the controversy. (Paras 15, 16)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - Appellate court orders allowing impleadment without assigning reasons or testing the application against the requirement of being a necessary or proper party are perverse and liable to be set aside. (Para 16)

Facts of the case:
The original plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, which was dismissed by the trial court. Both parties challenged the judgment in appeals. During the pendency of these appeals, the defendants sold the subject property to third parties. These third parties filed applications to be impleaded as parties in the pending appeal proceedings, which were allowed by the lower appellate court without providing reasons.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the orders allowing impleadment were cryptic and failed to apply the established tests for determining a necessary or proper party. Since the original suit concerned a specific contract between the plaintiff and the owner, the subsequent purchaser was not needed for a complete adjudication of the dispute, particularly as they would be bound by the outcome of the litigation pursuant to the doctrine of lis pendens.

Issues: The primary issues were whether a transferee pendente lite is a necessary or proper party in a suit for specific performance and whether the appellate court applied the correct legal standard in allowing their impleadment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that a transferee pendente lite is generally not a necessary party to a specific performance suit. Impleadment is a discretionary power that must be supported by reasons showing that the party's presence is essential for full adjudication. Absence of reasoning in the impugned order rendered it unsustainable.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for appeals in specific performance suits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments against impleading pendente lite transferees. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. arguments for impleading bona fide pendente lite purchasers. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. judicial discretion and necessity in order 1 rule 10. (Para 14 , 15)
5. application and distinction of precedents regarding impleadment. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
6. quashing of orders permitting improper third-party impleadment. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN M. DESAI, J.

1. The present petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging the orders dated 14.09.2021 passed below Exh. No. 55 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2008 and passed below Exh. 166 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2008 respectively by learned 14^th Additional District Judge, Rajkot. Regular Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2008 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2008 are arising out of the one Regular Civil Suit No. 1322 of 1996 and upon request of learned advocates for the respective parties, both petitions are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Nishant Lalakiya for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. H. J. Karathiya for respondent No. 3.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. H. J. Karathiya waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No. 3. With the consent of respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself.

4. Brief facts of the present case are as under:-

4.1. It is the case of the petitioners - legal heirs of original plaintiffs that the deceased father of petitioners Shri Chaturbhai Korat (original plaintiff) had entered into an agreement to sell dated 15.03.1978 of an agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No.5 paiki 3 Acre Gunthas 2.5 situated at Moje Gam Vavdi, Taluka and District-Rajkot with deceased Shri Harishankar Rajyaguru (who is husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2) for a total consideration of Rs.7625.25 paisa. Pursuant thereto the original plaintiff was put into possession of the suit property. After demise of Shri Harishankar Rajyaguru on 02.06.2004, original plaintiff approached the defendants by way of legal notice dated 29.02.1996 to execute a registered sale deed in his favour. The said request was turned down by the defendants hence, original plaintiff was constrained to file suit for specific performance, declaration and injunction. After considering the material placed on record, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2008 dismissed the suit of plaintiff. The plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2008 assailing the judgment and decree. Defendants also filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2008 before the learned Additional District Court at Rajkot assailing a finding on possession being believed of the original plaintiffs.

4.2. Pending aforesaid two Appeals, respondent Nos. 1.1 to 1.3 herein - original defendants sold the suit property to present respondent Nos. 3 to 5 by registered sale deed dated 09.03.2001. Respondent No. 3 filed an application Exh. 166 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2008 and Exh. 55 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2008 to be impleaded in the appeal proceedings. Learned Appellate Court allowed both the applications Exh. 166 and Exh. 55 in respective appeals by order dated 14.09.2021.

4.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioners - heirs of original plaintiffs have filed Special Civil Application No. 16043 of 2021 assailing order passed below Exh. 166 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2008 and Special Civil Application No. 15660 of 2021 passed below Exh.55 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2008 respectively.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioners contented that an agreement to sell was executed between Chaturbhai Bhagwanjibhai Korat and Harishankar Laxmiram Rajyaguru on 15.03.1978. Harishankar Laxmiram

Click Here to Read the rest of this document