The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the petition dated 10.09.2019 filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected, held that since the petitioner has been able to show his substantial interest in the adjudication of the matter and he is going to be directly affected by any decision of the appellate Court, it would be proper to allow the impleadment of the petitioner in the case.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is a purchaser from the plaintiff-respondent 2nd set who disposed of all the properties and was no longer interested in pursuing the title appeal. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs and the defendant State went into the appeal. The petitioner along with the respondents 3rd set purchased all the suit property by way of a joint sale deed prior to the passing of decree in the Title Suit No. 202 of 2013. The petitioner moved before the learned 1st appellate Court and filed an application for his impleadment as one of the respondents, which was rejected by the learned 1st appellate Court under Order XLI Rule 20 of the CPC.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the first appellate Court missed the point that the application had been filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code. Under this provision, the Court can implead any party at any stage even without an application if it thinks that his presence is necessary in order to effectively adjudicate the suit. Thus, the learned appellate Court misread the provisions and the impugned order is not sustainable.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the petitioner is a purchaser pendente lite and his vendor is already on the record as respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In whatever manner the appeal is decided, the same would bind the respondents, and will similarly affect the position of the petitioner.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the petitioner is a purchaser pendente lite. He purchased the property just prior to the passing of the judgment and decree. At the same time, his vendor is already on the record as one of the respondents before the appellate Court. However, if the petitioner has a reasonable apprehension that his vendor has lost interest in the case as he disposed of all the suit property, the petitioner has the right to seek impleadment even at the appellate stage.
The Court observed that as the petitioner has been able to show to the Court that he would be seriously prejudiced in case he is not impleaded as a party, even at the appellate stage, such impleadment should be allowed. Since the petitioner has been able to show his substantial interest in the adjudication of the matter and he is going to be directly affected by any decision of the appellate Court, it would be proper to allow the impleadment of the petitioner in the case.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned order is not sustainable and hence the same is set aside.
Case Title: Kumar Gaurav v The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Case no.: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.482 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Mukul Prasad
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
