Transferees pendente lite may be added as parties in litigation to protect their interests and prevent multiplicity of suits, as per Supreme Court principles regarding lis pendens.

Date : 03-04-2025

The petitioners have filed the instant civil miscellaneous petition for quashing the order dated 05.03.2019 passed by learned Munsif-II, Siwan in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the petition dated 04.12.2018 filed by respondent nos. 6 and 7 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘the Code’) has been allowed.

2. Facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the original defendant no.1 Ramchandra Sah executed a mahadnama on 27.10.1992 in favour of Devendra Ojha, the ancestor of the present petitioners, in respect of land of Khata No. 268, Kheshra No. 1011 for consideration amount of Rs. 30,000/- and he received Rs. 20,000/- at the time of execution of said mahadnama with stipulation that the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be paid at the time of registration of the land within one year. However, despite request by Devendra Ojha, Ramchandra Sah declined to execute the sale deed and thereafter Devendra Ojha filed a suit bearing Title Suit No. 331 of 1994 in the court of learned Munsif-II, Siwan for specific performance. The defendant Ramchandra Sah appeared and contested the suit but ultimately a compromise took place on 15.04.1996 and the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise on 18.01.2000 and decree was sealed and signed on 03.02.2000. The decree attained finality as it was not challenged. It further transpires that defendant Ramchandra Sah did not obey the decree and refused to execute the sale deed in favour of Devendra Ojha and hence, Devendra Ojha filed Execution Case No. 1 of 2002 in the court of learned Munsif-II, Siwan against Ramchandra Sah. It further transpires that Ramchandra Sah filed Title Suit No. 48 of 2002 for setting aside the compromise decree of Title Suit No. 331 of 1994 and for staying the Execution Case No. 1 of 2002. Devendra Ojha entered appearance in the said suit, filed his written statement on 05.03.2003 and also filed a separate petition under Order 23 Rule 3A of the Code on 03.07.2003 praying to dismiss the Title Suit No. 48 of 2002 as it was not maintainable. Further, Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code was filed for cancellation of compromise decree of Title Suit No. 331 of 1994. The said Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 was dismissed due to non-prosecution vide order dated 02.02.2017 by the learned Munsif-II, Siwan. Thereafter, Misc. Case No. 8 of 2017 was filed by respondent 1^st set under Section 151 of the Code for restoration of Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 which is pending for disposal. During pendency of this miscellaneous case, respondents 2^nd set filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for their addition as party on 04.12.2018. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the said petition on 11.02.2019 submitting that the intervenors were not necessary party to the proceeding. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, allowed the petition filed by the respondents 2^nd set vide order dated 05.03.2019. This order is under challenge before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is illegal and the learned trial court has committed error of jurisdiction in allowing the petition for addition of parties. Learned counsel submitted that in a proceeding for restoration of restoration case, the outsiders to the proceeding cannot be allowed to contest the same, that too, when five applicants are already on record. The learned trial court failed to consider that the intervenors are purchasers during pendency and they have purchased the litigation and cannot insist upon being made parties as the heirs of RamchandraSahare already on record and for this reason the intervenors/respondents 2ndset a