Sarojamani vs Ramalingam

M.M. Sundresh, J.—The Suit in O.S. No.81 of 2007 is filed by the First Respondent herein before the Sub-Court, Sankari against Respondents 2 to 5 herein for partition, separate possession and for permanent injunction. It is the case of the Petitioner herein that she purchased the Suit Schedule property in S.No.339/5 Punjai Hrs.0.16.0 equivalent to Acre 0.40 in this an extent of 34 cents and S.No.342/3C Punjai Hrs.0.66.5 equivalent to Acres 1.65 in this 55 cents of land under a registered Sale Deed dated 4.9.2009 from the 3rd Respondent herein, who is the 2nd Defendant in the Suit and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, she, being transferee pendente lite has interest in a part of the Suit property and she has a right to be impleaded as a party to the Suit. As such, she filed I.A. No.508 of 2008 in the Suit seeking to implead herself as a party/Defendant. However, the Trial Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Revision is filed by the Petitioner.

The issue involved in this Civil Revision Petition is no longer res integra. Considering the right of the purchaser pendente lite, the Honourable Supreme Court in Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt Ltd, 2013 (2) CTC 104 (SC) : 2013 (5) SCC 397, has held that such a party is entitled to be impleaded as a party to the Suit in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

In view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court referred above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. However, taking note of the fact that the Suit in O.S. No.81 of 2007 is pending from 2007 onwards, the jurisdictional Court viz., Sub-Court, Sankari is directed to dispose of the Suit in O.S. No.81 of 2007 on its file within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.