HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12667/2020 Shambhu Singh Son Of Shri Govind Singh ----Petitioner Versus Smt. Krishna Devi Wife Of Shri Musaddilal Yadav ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv with Ms. Laxmi Nivas Koli, Adv. &

Mr. Avinash Pathak, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, Adv.

Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Amit Kuri, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

17/11/2025 Matter comes up on an application (I.A. No.1/2024), filed by the respondent(s) regarding intimation of the death of respondent Nos.3, 6 & 8.

In view of the reasons stated, the same is allowed.

An application (I.A. No.1/2025) filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, 1908 for bringing the legal heirs of deceased respondent Nos.3, 6 & 8 on record.

The same has not been opposed by the respondents.

In view of the reasons stated, the application (I.A.

No.1/2025) is allowed and legal heirs of deceased respondent Nos.3, 6 & 8 are ordered to be taken on record.

Amended cause title which is filed with the application is taken on record.

Issue notice to LRs of deceased respondent Nos.3, 6 & 8.

The application (I.A No.2/2024) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the applicants for their impleadment as party-respondents.

It is contended that during the pendency of the writ petition the applicants have purchased the entire property including the Plot No.404 Scheme Tagore Nagar, for which the patta (Annexure-

6) was issued by the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.

Learned counsel for the applicants stated that since the rights with regard to the land have now devolved upon them, therefore, the applicants being the subsequent purchasers are necessary party to the present proceedings.

Objecting to the said application, counsel for the applicants stated that as a matter of fact, the status quo order has been passed by this Court on 19.11.2020 and the applicants have purchased the entire property in violation of the interim order passed by this Court and therefore, the are not entitled to be impleaded as party – respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment dated 21.02.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and Others, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397, the relevant paras of the said judgment are quoted below:-

"55. We are not on virgin ground insofar as that question is concerned. Decisions of this Court have dealt with similar situations and held that a transferee pendente lite can be added as a party to the suit lest the transferee suffered prejudice on account of the transferor losing interest in the litigation post transfer. In Khemchand Shankar Choudhari v. Vishnu Hari Patil [(1983) 1 SCC 18] this Court held that: (SCC p. 21, para 6)

“6. … The position of a person on whom any interest has devolved on account of a transfer during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding is somewhat similar to the position of an heir or a legatee of a party who dies during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding….”

Any such heir, legatee or transferee cannot be turned away when she applies for being added as a party to the suit. The following passage in this regard is apposite: (SCC pp. 20-21, para 6)

“6. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act no doubt lays down that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject-matter of a suit from any of the parties to the suit will be bound insofar as that interest is concerned by the proceedings in the suit. Such a transferee is a representative in interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. Rule 10 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly recognises the right of a transferee to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and to be heard before any order is made. It may be that if he does not apply to be impleaded, he may