Allahabad High Court
Naeemuddin vs Deputy Director Consolidation ... on 7 November, 2013
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
A.F.R.
Court No. - 21
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 674 of 2013
Petitioner :- Naeemuddin
Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation Pratapgarh And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shafiq Mirza
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard Shri Shafiq Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Opposite party no. 3 Kashi Nath sold the entire agricultural property in dispute in favour of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 namely Zaibunnisa and Qamrunnisa. In the litigation which was going on before the Consolidation Authorities in between the petitioner and respondent no. 3, in respect of the agricultural property in dispute, the pendente-lite purchasers respondent no. 6 and 7, applied for their impleadment. The application was allowed by the consolidation Officer Sadar II, Pratapgarh through order dated 13.04.2012 passed in case No. 591/414 of 2011-12. Against the said order petitioner filed Revision No. 1775/1675 of 2012-13 Naimuddin Vs. Jaibunnisha and others. Deputy Director of Consolidation Pratapgarh dismissed the Revision on 27.08.2013 hence this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that by virtue of section 52 of T.P. Act, transferee pendente-lite is bound by the judgment which is ultimately passed in the case. This argument is 100% correct. However, on the basis of this very argument pendente-lite transferee deserves to be impleaded. If a judgment is binding upon a person it is necessary to hear him before passing the judgment. After transferring the property the transferor loses all the interest in the property. If transferee is not impleaded, the other side will have a cake walk as there would be no one to oppose his case.
Moreover by virtue of Order 22 Rule 10 of C.P.C. in case of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during pendency of the 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. Accordingly, in view of the said provision also the impleadment is perfectly permissible. The Supreme Court in Saila Bal Dassi Vs. Nirmala Sundri Dassi A.I.R. 1958 Supreme Court 394 has thoroughly discussed this aspect of the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an authority reported in Sanjay Verma Vs. Manik Roy and others A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 1332. In the said case there were series of transfers and applicants for impleadment had not purchased the entire property in dispute in the suit.
In this regard reference may also be made to the following authorities of the Supreme Court:-
1. A.I.R. 2012, Supreme Court 2925, Vidur Impex and Traders Vs. Tosh Apartment.
In this case several authorities of the supreme Court were considered. Reference was particularly made in para 30 to the authority of Amit Kumar Shaw Vs. Farida Khatoon, A.I.R. 2005, Supreme Court 2209 holding as follows:
"But the transferee pendente-lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject matter of suit is substantial and not just peripheral. A transferee pendente-lite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation where the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant: the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit."
Thereafter it was held in the same para that :
"alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests."
In para 36 of this authority it was held that : "Though there is apparent conflict in observations made in some of the aforesaid judgments."
Thereafter, in para 36 certain principles were laid down for impleadment of transferee pendente-lite.
2. A. Navab John Vs. U.N. Subramanyan 2012 (7) SCC 738 Para 15 onward referring to the authority of Sanjay Verma also cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In para 20 the above authority of Saila Bala Dassi Vs. Nirmala Sundri Dassi, A.I.R. 1958, Supreme Court 394 was specifically considered holding that a pendente lite purchaser should be given an opportunity to protect his rights. In para 21 of this authority also it was held that
" There is some diversions of opinion regarding the question whether a pendente lite purchaser is entitled as the matter of right to get impleaded in the suit."
Thereafter aforesaid authority of Amit Kumar Saw was quoted. Thereafter, in para 22 it was held as follows:
" Preponderance of opinion of this Court is that a pendente lite purchaser's application for impleadment should normally be allowed or considered liberally."
Accordingly, in view of the above I hold that there is absolutely nothing wrong in the impugned orders allowing the impleadment application. The order would have been liable to be set aside if impleadment application had been rejected.
Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.11.2013
Deepak
