Sanu vs Anita Devi

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

On repeated call, nobody has responded on behalf of the Opposite parties and identical was the situation on 23.01.2025. On that date, with a view to provide one more opportunity to the Opposite party nos.1 to 5, the matter was adjourned and further it was adjourned on 20.02.2025 with a view to provide further opportunity and in spite of that, no response has been made on behalf of the Opposite parties, and as such, this petition is being heard in absence of the Opposite parties.

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) IX, Deoghar in M.C.A. No.255 of 2022 in Original Suit No.46 of 2019 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC to implead necessary parties has been rejected by the learned court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was necessitated that by way of said petition the subsequent purchasers of the land, which was the subject matter of the suit, have been tried to be impleaded which has been rejected by the learned court. He submits that subsequently it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that even prior to institution of the suit, some of the land has been sold to another person. He submits that the purchaser of the land were necessary party and it is well settled. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently decided this aspect of the matter in the case of Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind and Ors. [Civil Appeal No(s) 7305 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.(s) 10005 of 2022)] reported in 2024 INSC 510 and he relied on paragraph nos.16, 19, 20 and 21 of the said judgment, which are quoted below:

“16. The fulcrum of the dispute herein concerns the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite who undisputedly had notice of the pending litigation. At the outset, it appears pertinent to reiterate the settled position that the doctrine of lis pendens as provided under Section 52 of the Act does not render all transfers pendente lite to be void ab-initio, it merely renders rights arising from such transfers as subservient to the rights of the parties to the pending litigation and subject to any direction that the Court may pass thereunder.

The Respondents herein assail the impleadment of the Appellant on the ground that he is not a bona fide purchaser as he had full knowledge of the pending litigation. While that is the admitted position, there exists no bar to the impleadment of transferees pendente lite with notice. Permitting the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite is, in each case, a discretionary exercise undertaken to enable a purchaser with a legally enforceable right to protect their interests especially when the transferor fails to defend the suit or where there is a possibility of collusion.

In the particular facts and circumstances of this case, Mr. Sundaram has been able to satisfy this Court on the possibility of collusion between the Respondents. It is a fact that the Plaintiffs and Defendants are relatives. More importantly, Plaintiffs approached the court in the Underlying Suit after a substantial delay of 11 years whereas admittedly, the revenue records were mutated to reflect the name of Respondent No. 21 since 2007. It is also curious that the claim of non-payment of consideration by the Appellant was made for the first time before this Court.

On the other hand, the Appellant has a registered sale deed in his favor and has therefore seemingly acquired an interest in the Subject Land. Whether or not the consideration was paid, is a disputed question of fact that shall be determined by the Trial Court. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, including the fact that the trial has not progressed significantly, the Appellant herein, in the interest of justice, is entitled to impleadment in the Underlying Suit in order to protect his interests, if any, in the Subject Land.”

It has been contended that the land of the suit was sold to another person and the persons who have been tried to be impleaded were the purchasers and they are having the right to protect their interest especially, when the suit is with regard to the same land and at least that is required to work out equity in their favour. As such, the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) IX, Deoghar in M.C.A. No.255 of 2022 in Original Suit No.46 of 2019 is set aside.

The petition filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C is allowed.

This petition is disposed of in above terms.

The learned court will proceed further after providing opportunity to both the sides and decide the same in accordance with law.

Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.