K. Venkataramaiah Setty vs B.R. Seetharamappa Setty and Others

V. Jagannathan, J.—The appellant filed an application before the Court below under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. to implead him as plaintiff-11 in the suit that is pending and in which the plaintiffs had sought declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants. The Trial Court dismissed the said application by observing that the applicant will get better title to the property only after his vendors succeed in the suit aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant is before this Court.

Heard Sri S.V. Shastri, the learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Arabatti, the learned Counsel for R-2, R-3 and R-7, and Smt. Pallavi, the learned Counsel for R-12 and R-14. The learned Counsel for the appellant, referring to Order 22 Rule 10, submitted that as the applicant has purchased the property in question from the plaintiff, he is interested in the outcome of the suit and, therefore, the Trial Court could not have declined to implead him as plaintiff-11. He also placed reliance on a ruling reported in ILR 2004 Karnataka 1148 to contend that a transferee, though not brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10, is entitled to move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. to set aside the decree passed against his transferor. Therefore, the impugned order is erroneous in law.

Order 22 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. reads this:

Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit. - (1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.

(2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit of Sub-rule (l).

It is, therefore, clear from the above provision that the suit may be continued with the leave of the court against a person upon whom such interest has come or devolved. Having regard to the said provision, in the instant case, the Trial Court was in error in disallowing the application filed by the appellant. Even the Apex Court, in the case of Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal ILR 2004 Kar 1148 has laid down the law that even a lis pendens transferee, though not brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. is entitled to move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. to set aside a decree passed against his transferor. Therefore, drawing analogy from the above decision, in the instant case also, the fate of the applicant in regard to the property purchased by him from his vendor i.e., the plaintiffs, depends to a great extent on the decision to be rendered by the Trial Court in the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. As such, the impugned order has to be set aside.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to permit the appellant to be impleaded as plaintiff-11. The contentions urged with regard to the merits of the case are, however, kept open.