Others v. Counsel for

1. Heard Shri Ratnesh Trivedi, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Civil Revision No.22 of 2024 whereby the Revision has been allowed and the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Lakhimpur Kheri in Civil Suit no.451 of 2019 rejecting the application for impleadment filed by the opposite party No.4 Chandan Mishra, was set-aside and the revisional court has allowed the impleadment application.

3. The aforesaid suit has been filed by the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 against the petitioner seeking a relief of cancellation of a sale deed and perpetual injunction. It is stated in the plaint that the property in dispute originally belonged to Abdul Majid- deceased husband of opposite party No.1 and father of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The plaint states that Arshaf Hafiz- son of the petitioner claims to have acquired title in respect of the property through a sale deed dated 08.10.2003 executed by the plaintiff No.1- Smt. Mohammadi whereas the plaintiffs categorically denied execution of the sale deed and receipt of any sale consideration. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff No.1 is an old, ailing and frail lady who is illiterate and parda nashin and, therefore, the petitioner fraudulently got a sale deed executed in favour of her son Ashraf Hafiz.

4. The opposite party No.4 has filed an application for impleadment in the suit stating that the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 have executed a sale deed in respect of the property in question in his favour.

5. The impleadment was rejected by means of an order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Lakhimpur Kheri stating that addition of a new party will prolong and protract the proceedings and he is neither a necessary nor appropriate party to the 2 A227 No. 6185 of 2025 suit.

6. Civil Revision No.-22 of 2024 filed by the opposite party No.2 has been allowed by the impugned order and the revisional court has held that as the opposite party No.4 claims to have acquired title to the property in dispute through a sale deed executed in his favour, he is a necessary party.

7. While assailing the aforesaid revisional order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of H. Anjanappa & Ors. v. Beena Anthony & Ors.; (2025) INSC 121 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles :- "58. From a conspectus of all the aforesaid judgments, touching upon the present aspect, broadly, the following would emerge: i. First, for the purpose of impleading a transferee pendente lite, the facts and circumstances should be gone into and basing on the necessary facts, the Court can permit such a party to come on record, either under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC or under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, as a general principle; ii. Secondly, a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right, iii. Thirdly, there is no absolute rule that such a transferee pendente lite, with the leave of the Court should, in all cases, be allowed to come on record as a party, iv. Fourthly, the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite would depend upon the nature of the suit and appreciation of the material available on record; V. Fifthly, where a transferee pendente lite does not ask for leave to come on record, that would obviously be at his peril, and the suit may be improperly conducted by the plaintiff on record; vi. Sixthly, merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented, vii. Seventhly, the sale transaction pendente lite is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act; and, viii. Eighthly, a transferee pendente lite, being an assignee of interest in the property, as envisaged under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, can seek leave of the Court to come record on his own or at the instance of either party to the suit."

8. When we examine the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that the petitioner is claiming right in respect of the property in question on the basis of a sale deed executed in favour of her son whereas she herself has no independent right, the suit has been filed seeking cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that the sale deed was executed by an illiterate, old, ailing and parda nashin woman. The other plaintiffs have executed a sale deed in respect of the property in question in favour of the opposite party No.4 and the opposite party No.4 claiming to have acquired title in respect of the property in question, has sought impleadment which has been allowed by the revisional court.

9. When we examine the validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the revisional court, it appears that even as per the principles 3 A227 No. 6185 of 2025 laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Anjanappa (supra), the opposite party No.4 is entitled to be impleaded in the suit.

10. There is no error or illegality in the revisional order dated 02.09.2025 which is under challenge in this petition and the impleadment of a person claiming title to the property in dispute on the basis of a registered sale deed does not cause any injustice to the petitioner.

11. The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. October 16, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Ratnesh Trivedi, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Civil Revision No.22 of 2024 whereby the Revision has been allowed and the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Lakhimpur Kheri in Civil Suit no.451 of 2019 rejecting the application for impleadment filed by the opposite party No.4 Chandan Mishra, was set-aside and the revisional court has allowed the impleadment application.

3. The aforesaid suit has been filed by the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 against the petitioner seeking a relief of cancellation of a sale deed and perpetual injunction. It is stated in the plaint that the property in dispute originally belonged to Abdul Majid- deceased husband of opposite party No.1 and father of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The plaint states that Arshaf Hafiz- son of the petitioner claims to have acquired title in respect of the property through a sale deed dated 08.10.2003 executed by the plaintiff No.1- Smt. Mohammadi whereas the plaintiffs categorically denied execution of the sale deed and receipt of any sale consideration. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff No.1 is an old, ailing and frail lady who is illiterate and parda nashin and, therefore, the petitioner fraudulently got a sale deed executed in favour of her son Ashraf Hafiz.

4. The opposite party No.4 has filed an application for impleadment in the suit stating that the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 have executed a sale deed in respect of the property in question in his favour.

5. The impleadment was rejected by means of an order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Lakhimpur Kheri stating that addition of a new party will prolong and protract the proceedings and he is neither a necessary nor appropriate party to the 2 A227 No. 6185 of 2025 suit.

6. Civil Revision No.-22 of 2024 filed by the opposite party No.2 has been allowed by the impugned order and the revisional court has held that as the opposite party No.4 claims to have acquired title to the property in dispute through a sale deed executed in his favour, he is a necessary party.

7. While assailing the aforesaid revisional order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of H. Anjanappa & Ors. v. Beena Anthony & Ors.; (2025) INSC 121 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles :- "58. From a conspectus of all the aforesaid judgments, touching upon the present aspect, broadly, the following would emerge: i. First, for the purpose of impleading a transferee pendente lite, the facts and circumstances should be gone into and basing on the necessary facts, the Court can permit such a party to come on record, either under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC or under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, as a general principle; ii. Secondly, a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right, iii. Thirdly, there is no absolute rule that such a transferee pendente lite, with the leave of the Court should, in all cases, be allowed to come on record as a party, iv. Fourthly, the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite would depend upon the nature of the suit and appreciation of the material available on record; V. Fifthly, where a transferee pendente lite does not ask for leave to come on record, that would obviously be at his peril, and the suit may be improperly conducted by the plaintiff on record; vi. Sixthly, merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented, vii. Seventhly, the sale transaction pendente lite is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act; and, viii. Eighthly, a transferee pendente lite, being an assignee of interest in the property, as envisaged under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, can seek leave of the Court to come record on his own or at the instance of either party to the suit."

8. When we examine the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that the petitioner is claiming right in respect of the property in question on the basis of a sale deed executed in favour of her son whereas she herself has no independent right, the suit has been filed seeking cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that the sale deed was executed by an illiterate, old, ailing and parda nashin woman. The other plaintiffs have executed a sale deed in respect of the property in question in favour of the opposite party No.4 and the opposite party No.4 claiming to have acquired title in respect of the property in question, has sought impleadment which has been allowed by the revisional court.

9. When we examine the validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the revisional court, it appears that even as per the principles 3 A227 No. 6185 of 2025 laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Anjanappa (supra), the opposite party No.4 is entitled to be impleaded in the suit.

10. There is no error or illegality in the revisional order dated 02.09.2025 which is under challenge in this petition and the impleadment of a person claiming title to the property in dispute on the basis of a registered sale deed does not cause any injustice to the petitioner.

11. The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. October 16, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench