Jharkhand High Court
Sanu Aged About 31 Years Son Of Prabhu ... vs Anita Devi on 15 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:11332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
C.M.P. No. 326 of 2023
----
Sanu aged about 31 years son of Prabhu Shankar Mishra, resident of
Chadra Bhawan, Ward No.20, Assam Road, Matha Bandh, P.O., PS-
Deoghar (Town) District Deoghar, Jharkhand ... Petitioner/ Plaintiff
-- Versus --
1.Anita Devi, wife of late Murari Raj Jajware
2.Abhay Raj, son of late Murari Raj Jajware,
3.Anjali Raj, daughter of late Murari Raj Jajware, (minor and represented
through her mother and natural guardian, Anita Devi)
4.Amisha Raj, daughter of late Murari Raj Jajware, (minor and represented
through her mother and natural guardian, Anita Devi)
5.Anushka Murari Raj, daughter of late Murari Raj Jajware, (minor and
represented through her mother and natural guardian, Anita Devi)
All residents of Abhay Ashram, Harihar Bari, PO+PS- Deoghar,
District Deoghar ...... .... ...Opposite Parties/ Defendants
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Vidhika Saboo, Advocate
For the Opposite Party(s) :
----
10/15.04.2025 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.
2. 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
2025:JHHC:11332
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.
3. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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
2025:JHHC:11332
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.
21. 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."
4. 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.
5. The petition filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C is
allowed.
6. This petition is disposed of in above terms.
7. The learned court will proceed further after providing opportunity to both
the sides and decide the same in accordance with law.
8. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/
