A transfer of interest pendente lite does not render an appeal incompetent, as the original party may continue the litigation for the benefit of their successors, and the court has the discretion to allow such proceedings to continue under O.22 R.10 CPC.

CMP No. 3237 of 2025

The applicants/respondents/plaintiffs have filed the present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for the dismissal of the appeal. It has been asserted that the applicants/ plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction against defendant Smt. Anita, which was decreed on 31.12.2010. Anita filed the civil appeal in the Court of Learned District Judge, Sirmaur. She had already sold her share in favour of Mohmad Ali through registered Sale deed No.77 on 10.02.2011. She had lost the right title and interest in the suit property. The appellant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for his impleadment, which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Sirmour, H.P. However, this application could not have been entertained in an appeal, which was not maintainable. The sale transaction was executed in utter disobedience of the finding of the learned Trial

Court. The impleadment of the appellant in the appeal was of no avail because the appeal was not maintainable. The present appeal is also not maintainable; hence, it has been prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

2. The application is opposed by filing a reply denying the contents of the application. It has been asserted that the lis before the court has to be decided considering the facts existing on the date of the filing of the suit. The sale deed was executed after the decree of the suit. The subsequent purchaser would step into the shoes of the original defendant. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr Sumit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Tarun Brakta, learned counsel for the non-applicants.

4. Mr Sumit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that Anita had sold the land on the date of institution of the appeal. She was not competent to file the appeal because she had lost her title. The non-applicant sought the impleadment in the appeal, which was allowed. However, the appeal was not

maintainable, and the order of impleadment will not benefit the non-applicant. The present appeal filed by the non-applicant is also not maintainable. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the appeal filed by the non-applicant be dismissed as not maintainable.

5. Mr Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for the non-applicant, submitted that the rights and duties are to be determined as they exist on the date of the institution of the suit. The sale by Anita Devi would not have any effect on the pendency of the litigation; therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions: -
 Rikhu Dev vs Som Dass AIR 1975 SCC 2159;
 Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai Prakash University (2001) 6 SCC 534;
 Jaskirat Datwani vs. Vidyvati & Others (2002) 5 SCC 647; and
 Government of Orissa vs. Ashok Transport Agency & others (2005) 1 SCC 536

6. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hukum Chandra v. Nemi Chand Jain , (2019) 13

SCC 363 = 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2812, that rights and liabilities stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit, but the Court can take note of the subsequent events in appropriate cases. It was observed: -
“15. The rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit. However, in appropriate cases, the court can take note of all the subsequen