Chandra Shekhar Nath Gaunjhu v. Manish Kumar Gupta & Ors.

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate For the Opp. Party(s) : …... 03/ 20.10.2022. The instant CMP has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) 1st, Khunti in Original Suit No.01/2011 whereby and whereunder the petition under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed in favour of pendente lite purchaser of the suit property thereby impleading them in the suit. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that during pendency of the said suit, one of the defendants who has share in the property sold his share in gross contravention of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act to the respondent nos.1 and 2 through sale deeds. In this view of the matter, the petition for impleadment was not sustainable in the eyes of law.

From perusal of the impugned order, I find that learned court below has given sufficient and cogent reasons for impleading the pendente lite purchaser of the suit property. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not bar impleading a party who has acquired interest in the suit property during pendency of it. However, the party(s) shall be bound by the final outcome of the suit. It has been held in 2017 (7) SCC 342 T. Ravi and another Vs B. Chinna Narasimha – Section 52 does not annul the convenience transfer otherwise the effect of section 52 TPA is not to render transfers effected during the pendency of a suit by a party to the suit void; but only to render such transfers subservient to the rights of the parties to such suit, as may be, eventually, determined in the suit in other words the transfer remains valid subject, of course, to the result of the suit the pendente lite purchaser would be entitle or suffer the seam legal rights and obligations of his vendor as may eventually determine by the court.

In Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and Others (2001(6) SCC 534) it was noted as follows: “7. Under Rule 10 Order 22 of the Code, when there has been a devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the court, be continued by or against persons upon whom such interest has devolved and this entitles the person who has acquired an interest in the subject-matter of the litigation by an assignment or creation or devolution of interest pendente lite or suitor or any other person interested, to apply to the court for leave to continue the suit. But it does not follow that it is obligatory upon them to do so. If a party does not ask for leave, he takes the obvious risk that the suit may not be properly conducted by the plaintiff on record, and yet, as pointed out by Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Moti Lal v. Karrabuldin (ILR (1898) 25 Cal 179) he will be bound by the result of the litigation even though he is not represented at the hearing unless it is shown that the litigation was not properly conducted by the original party or he colluded with the adversary.

It is also plain that if the person who has acquired an interest by devolution, obtains leave to carry on the suit, the suit in his hands is not a new suit, for, as Lord Kingsdown of the Judicial Committee said in Prannath Roy Chowdry v. Rookea Begum [(1857-60) 7 MIA 323), a cause of action is not prolonged by mere transfer of the title. It is the old suit carried on at his instance and he is bound by all proceedings up to the stage when he obtains leave to carry on the proceedings.” Under the above stated position of law, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant CMP being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Sandeep/ (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)