Kailash Prasad Sahu vs Smt. Vidya Bai

Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Deepak Agrawal in I.A. No. 603/13. They are heard on I.A. No. 603/13 an application filed by Shri Deepak Agrawal under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. making a prayer to implead him as appellant no. 2 and to prosecute the appeal.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant Kailash Prasad challenging the judgment and decree dated 23/11/11 whereby plaintiff respondent''s Smt. Vidya Bai suit for specific performance has been decreed.

Applicant Deepak Agrawal claims to have purchased the suit property from the appellant defendant on 25/11/10 by registered sale deed and he has filed the application on the ground that he has a right to the property by virtue of the sale and the property was sold to him concealing the fact about pendency of the civil suit, even though the application submitted before the trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. had been rejected, Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant invites our attention to the law recently laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors P. Ltd. and Others, to say that the application can be allowed and the applicant can be impleaded as a party.

Taking us through the law laid down in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (supra), Shri Ravish Agrawal emphasized that the application should be allowed.

Shri A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent refutes the aforesaid and placing reliance on various judgments in para 4 of the reply emphasized that as applicant is a purchaser who has purchased the property during the pendency of the suit or the appeal, the principles of lis pendency would apply. The applicant would be bound by the result of the proceeding and he cannot be impleaded as a party.

Shri A.K. Jain fairly submitted that even though, in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (supra), the principle laid down permits impleading the appellant as a party but as various judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by him in para 4 of the reply mostly take a different view, he submits that the prayer should be rejected.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (supra) is the most recent judgment with regard to the question involved in this application. Hon''ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has relied upon more than 10 cases of the Supreme Court earlier decided including the case of Surjit and others Vs. Harbans Singh and others etc. etc., which is relied upon by Shri A.K. Jain.

That apart, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Others, and earlier judgments on the question namely Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shivnath Mishra alias Gadasa Guru, 7, Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others, a three Judge decision and Vijay Pratap and others Vs. Sambhu Saran Sinha, have been relied upon and it has been held in para 22 by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (supra) that after taking note of the earlier decisions and the principles laid down therein, it is held that in a suit for specific performance, the Court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files Application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation.

It has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that having regard to the law discussed in the judgment, the subsequent purchaser has to be added as a party.

Keeping in view the principles laid down in the aforesaid case and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we see no reason to take a different view. Most of the judgments of the Supreme Court right from Jayaram Mudaliar Vs. Ayyaswami and Others, to Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and Others, and Vidhur Impex and Traders (supra) of the year 2012 have been considered in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (supra) and a decision taken.

That being so, we have no hesitation in allowing the application filed by the applicant. Accordingly, I.A. No. 603/13 is allowed. The applicant Shri Deepak Agrawal is permitted to be impleaded as appellant no. 2.

Necessary corrections be made in the cause title.

However, the applicant shall as a result of his addition be permitted to raise and pursue only such defence which was originally taken by the appellant and none other.

This is in view of the observation in this regard made by the Supreme Court in Clause-4 of the order passed in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (supra). With the aforesaid, application stands allowed and disposed of.