Jharkhand High Court
Veena Devi vs Rama Shankar Lal & Ors on 14 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 130 of 2021
Veena Devi .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Rama Shankar Lal & Ors. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Vineet Prakash, Advocate
For the Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate
......
10/14.11.2022. Heard the parties.
The instant CMP has been preferred for quashing the order dated
13.02.2020 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) IV, Deoghar, in
Original Suit No.27 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the learned court below has
rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for
impleading her as intervener defendant in the said suit.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that
the learned court below has rejected the petition of this petitioner to be impleaded
in the suit on the ground that the sale deed on the basis of which this petitioner
claims title over the suit property, but the subject matter of sale does not
correspond with the schedule property as set out in the plaint. Secondly that he
was a pendente lite purchaser and, therefore, provision of Section 52 of the
Transfer of the Property Act will not be applicable because the vendor of the
petitioner has already been impleaded in the suit who is competent to protect the
interest of this petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly submits that
part of the observation of the learned court below is factually correct that the
subject matter of the sale on the basis of which the petitioner claims title and the
suit property is different. However, the impleadment of this petitioner is necessary
and he has interest in the suit because of the second relief prayed to declare the
decree dated 07.01.2003 passed in T. (P) Suit No.68 of 2002 to be illegal.
From the recital of the sale-deed, it will be evident that the vendor claims
right, title over the property transferred by him on the basis of a decree passed in
the Suit and, therefore, any adverse order with regard to the judgment and decree
will directly affect the interest of this petitioner, as such, it is a necessary party in
the suit. Provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC mandates that where a specific
right or interest was devolved on a particular party then during pendency of the
suit, by the leave of the Court, the suit can be considered against the person upon
whom such interest is devolved.
Reliance has been placed rendered in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw and
Anr. vs. Farida Khatoon and Anr., reported in 2005 (11) SCC 403, in which the
law has been settled that the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party
to the suit, though the court has a discretion to make him a party. But the
transferee pendente lite can be added as a property party if his interest in the
subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. Hence, the plaintiff
is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party under Order 22
Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party.
Learned counsel for the Opp. Parties has opposed the prayer. It is submitted
that the suit was filed in the year 2007 and the written statement was filed in the
month of June and issues were framed. During pendency of the suit, temporary
injunction petition was allowed for preservation of the entire property during
which the petitioner has purchased the property. At present the case is now posted
for final argument, after 15 years of filing of the suit.
Further, impleading the petitioner at this stage will prolong the trial.
The plea that was taken before the learned court below was that the
property of this petitioner with that of the suit land was overlapping, but that plea
has now been abandoned and a new plea has been taken with regard to partition
suit. The brother of this petitioner, namely, Sunil Kumar Keshri was examined as
defendant witness no.2 and he has full information about the proceeding of the
case. So ignorance of the pending litigation cannot be pleaded on behalf of the
petitioner.
The parties to the said partition suit have all been impleaded in the present
suit. Therefore, the interest of this petitioner is well protected through his
vendor(s) as well as the parties to the partition suit.
Reliance has been placed on 2012 (8) SCC 384 at Para 36 wherein it has
been held that parties should be allowed to be impleaded only when either they are
proper and necessary party whose presence in the Court is necessary for effective
and complete adjudication of the issue involved in the suit.
Having considered rival submissions and stage of the suit and taking into
account the fact that the vendor of the petitioner as well as parties to the Partition
Suit is already on record, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the instant CMP stands dismissed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
