Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J
Kanhiya Real Estate and Infrastructure – Appellant
Versus
Som Sharma – Respondent
CR-2404-2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prateek Gupta, Vanshika Tuteja, Abhinav Singla
For the Respondents: Ritesh Aggarwal, Chankirat Singh Bakshi, Prashant Puri

A pendente lite transferee who acquires the entire interest of a party in a pending suit is entitled to be impleaded as a party under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC to protect their interests, as they are a representative-in-interest, ensuring the final adjudication binds all concerned parties.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 22 Rule 10 - Suit for permanent injunction - Pendente lite transfer of property - Impleadment of transferee - Scope - Application under O.22 R.10 CPC dismissed by trial court - Held, a transferee pendente lite who has acquired the entire interest of a party is vitally interested in the suit - Trial court committed error in rejecting application without prima facie satisfaction - Transferee is a representative-in-interest and entitled to be impleaded to protect their rights and avoid multiplicity of litigation. (Paras 9-15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner (assignee/transferee) purchased the entire holding of the plaintiffs in a pending suit for permanent injunction concerning a passage. The application filed by the petitioner to be impleaded as a plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court, contending that as a successor-in-interest, they were entitled to continue the suit.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the trial court exercised its powers perversely. It clarified that a pendente lite purchaser is a necessary party to protect their interest and that the proceedings should not be delayed by the addition. The impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be impleaded as plaintiff No. 9.

Issues: Whether a pendente lite transferee of the entire suit property is entitled to be impleaded as a party under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC in an ongoing suit for permanent injunction.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferee pendente lite, having acquired the entire interest of the original party, is a representative-in-interest. The court should allow impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC when satisfied prima facie, to prevent potential collusion or lack of diligent defense by the original party and to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Result: Petition allowed.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION

Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, respondents No.4 to 11 had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants/respondents No.1 to 3 from blocking any portion of passage measuring 20' x 304' approx. It is stated that they be provided passage leading from the public road to land, which was comprised in Khasra No.2283 min (0- 19), (Khewat No.2035, Khatauni No.10339; Khasra No.2283 min (1-18) Khewat No. 2037 Khatauni No.10341 and Khasra No.2219/2 min, situated in Patti Mehna, near Phase-III Green City/ residential colony, Bathinda. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the present petitioner had purchased the entire holding of the plaintiffs vide six sale deeds i.e. 19.12.2024 (Annexures P-3 & P-4), 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-5), 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-6), 20.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) and 02.07.2025 (Annexure P-8). It is further submitted that since the petitioner had purchased the entire share of the plaintiffs and also had substantial interest in the dispute, thus, the petitioner had moved an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of leave/permission of the Court to continue with the suit and for impleading the petitioner as plaintiff, being assignee and transferee during the pendency of the suit. It is stated that the said application has been dismissed by the trial Court on surmises and conjectures and the same is in violation of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Amit Kumar Shaw and another Vs. Farida Khatoon and another”, reported as (2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 403. It is further submitted that the application filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, on the other hand, has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner is also seeking to be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which cannot be permitted as the petitioner is a lis pendens purchaser and cannot be made a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have already been following up the case and the case is presently listed for the evidence of the plaintiffs and thus, the impleadment of the petitioner would unnecessarily delay the proceedings. It is argued that the impugned order has been rightly passed and the same deserves to be upheld and at any rate, the petitioner can only join as a party from the present stage of the suit and should be bound by the pleadings which have already been made in the suit. It is submitted that the petitioner is seeking to substitute the plaintiffs which is not permissible as the plaintiffs are already following up the case and are leading their evidence.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 11

Learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 11/plaintiffs has submitted that the plaintiffs have no objection if the petitioner is either impleaded as party or is substituted in place of the plaintiffs as they have sold their entire interest to the petitioner.

ARGUMENTS IN REBUTTAL

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted that in view of the strong objections raised by the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents No.1 to 3, the petitioner would be satisfied in case it is impleaded as plaintiff No.9 and has also submitted that it would join the proceedings from the stage at which the case had already reached and has prayed that the memo of par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHVikas Bahl, JKanhiya Real Estate and Infrastructure – AppellantVersusSom Sharma – RespondentCR-2404-2026

A pendente lite transferee who acquires the entire interest of a party in a pending suit is entitled to be impleaded as a party under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC to protect their interests, as they are a representative-in-interest, ensuring the final adjudication binds all concerned parties.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J
Kanhiya Real Estate and Infrastructure – Appellant
Versus
Som Sharma – Respondent
CR-2404-2026