====================================================== 1. Umesh Kumar Singh Son Of Sri Shatruhan Singh Resident Of Village v. 1. Hem Narayan Singh @ Ram Shanka
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14209 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Umesh Kumar Singh Son Of Sri Shatruhan Singh Resident Of Village - Nawada Kala, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 2. Ram Pravesh Singh Son Of Sri Shatruhan Singh Resident Of Village - Nawada Kala, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 3. Naval Kishore Singh Son Of Sri Shatruhan Singh Resident Of Village - Nawada Kala, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Hem Narayan Singh @ Ram Shankar Prasad Singh Son Of Late Harihar Prasad Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 2. Most. Fulbhabri Kuwar Wife Of Late Harihar Prasad Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 3. Shyam Bihari Singh Son Of Late Chetnarayan Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 4. Most. Jagtaran Devi Wife Of Late Chetnarayan Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 5. Shatruhan Singh Son Of Late Ramvaran Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 6. Jugal Singh Son Of Late Ramvaran Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 7. Most. Samudri Devi Wife Of Late Ramvaran Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 8. Ramdeo Singh Son Of Late Ram Prasad Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 9. Kapildeo Singh Son Of Late Ram Prasad Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 10. Kailash Singh Son Of Late Ram Prasad Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 11. Most. Thakurain Devi wife of Late Ram Karan Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 12. Mahendra Singh Son Of Late Ram Karan Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 13. Nagendra Singh Son Of Late Ram Karan Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 14. Devendra Singh Son Of Late Ram Karan Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 15. Ishwari Prasad Singh Son Of Late Machhu Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 16. Rana Pramod Singh Son Of Late Machhu Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 17. Paltu Singh Son Of Late Deo Narain Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 18. Rameshwar Singh Son Of Late Nokha Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 19. Ram Ashis Singh Son Of Late Nokha Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 20. Ram Murli Singh Son Of Late Raktu Singh Resident Of Village - Patna High Court CWJC No.14209 of 2013 (2) dt.06-08-2013 P2/4 Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 21. Hirde Singh Son Of Late Ram Dhyan Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 22. Mukesh Singh Son Of Late Godhan Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 23. Ram Bali Singh Son Of Late Newalal Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 24. Chandrakant Singh Son Of Late Newalal Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 25. Bir Chandra Singh Son Of Late Newalal Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 26. Shiv Chandra Singh Son Of Late Newalal Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 27. Vijay Singh Son Of Late Newalal Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali 28. Mostt. Basmatia Devi Wife Of Late Newalal Singh Resident Of Village - Sahduhapur Satan, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District - Vaishali
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.C. Verma Mr. Arun Kumar Lal For the Respondent/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 06-08-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 02.03.2013 passed by learned Sub-Judge-II, Hajipur at Vaishali, in Title Suit No. 166 of 1995 whereby a petition filed by the petitioner for his impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected. 3. The petitioner’s claim to be impleaded as a party defendant is based on the fact that the petitioner purchased certain property during pendency of the suit on the basis of three registered sale deeds dated 15.09.2012 executed by his father, Patna High Court CWJC No.14209 of 2013 (2) dt.06-08-2013 P3/4 defendant No. 1, on the strength of holding power of attorney of one Jaga Singh. The property which the petitioner is said to have purchased belonged to Jaga Singh. Jaga Singh is admittedly is not a party in the suit. 4. In my view transferee pendente lite steps into the shoes of a party to the suit. In this case, the vendor himself is not a party and, therefore, his vendee could not claim to be impleaded as a party on the ground of him being transferee pendente lite. Secondly, the purpose of impleadment of a transferee pendente lite is to ensure that he may protect his interest in course of trial. In the present case, father of the petitioners is already there as defendant No. 1 and who is said to have executed the sale deeds, holding power of attorney on behalf of the petitioners’ vendor. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that the petitioners’ interest, if he has any, will go unprotected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the impugned order to submit that the Court below rejected the petition under Order I Rule 10 only on the ground that no leave was sought from the Court before purchasing the said property. He has placed reliance on judgments of Supreme Court to submit that even when a person purchases suit property without leave of the Court, he is required to be impleaded as a party so as Patna High Court CWJC No.14209 of 2013 (2) dt.06-08-2013 P4/4 to protect his interest as such transfer, though hit by lis pendens cannot be said to be void. 6. It is true that in a particular facts and circumstances of the case, a transferee pendente lite, who purchased the property without the leave of the Court, can be impleaded as a party. But such power to implead under Order I Rule 10 is discretionary and the Court may in exercise of discretion at any stage allow a person to be impleaded as a party. However, in view of the facts noted hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the learned Court below rightly refused to exercise its discretion under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by rejecting the petition for impleadment. 7. This application is accordingly dismissed. Saif/- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)