2005 (4) TMI 600 - SC - Indian Laws

Applications filed for substitution of the names - deceased and represented by their legal heirs in their place - service of notice - Power of a Court to add a party to a proceeding - Suit property - lease and transfer - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the applications for substitution were filed by the respective appellants in the second appeals which are still pending on the file of the High Court though it was filed in the year 1993. The appellants have properly, sufficiently and satisfactorily explained the delay in approaching the Court. We see bona fide in their explanation in not coming to the Court at the earliest point of time. Therefore, the appellants who are transferees pendente lite should be made as parties to the pending second appeals as prayed for by them. In our opinion, the High court has committed serious error in not ordering the applications for substitution filed by the appellants. In our view, the presence of the appellants are absolutely necessary in order to decide the appeals on merits. Since the High Court has committed error by rejecting the appellants applications for substitution treating the same as additional parties and thereby rendering the appellants non-suited. We have no hesitation in setting aside the said orders and permit the appellants to come on record by way of substitution as prayed for. The High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that the appellants had made the application for addition of party whereas the application under consideration was for substitution as the owner had sold the suit property to the appellants and had no interest in the pending litigation. In our opinion, the presence of the appellants was absolutely necessary since the appellants are the only persons who has got subsisting right, title and interest in the suit. The appellants are at liberty to contest the matter on merits. Consequently, the appeals shall stand allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Issues Involved:
1. Application of Order 1 Rule 10, Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
2. Decree for adverse possession and the necessity of a transferee pendente lite as a party.
3. High Court's error in concluding the necessity of appellants' presence.
4. High Court's error in treating substitution applications as addition of party.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Order 1 Rule 10, Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
The judgment addressed whether an application for substitution by a subsequent transferee can be rejected under these provisions. The court emphasized the objective of Order 1 Rule 10, which is to prevent technical dismissals and ensure that bona fide claimants are not non-suited. It was stated that a person may be added as a party if their presence is necessary to completely adjudicate the issues in the suit. Under Order XXII Rule 10, the court noted that no detailed inquiry is required at the stage of granting leave; the court only needs to be prima facie satisfied. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, embodying the doctrine of lis pendens, was highlighted to show that a decree passed during the pendency of a suit binds the transferee, and such transferees should ordinarily be allowed to be added as parties.

2. Decree for adverse possession and the necessity of a transferee pendente lite as a party:
The court discussed the case where the suit property was transferred to the appellants during the pendency of the second appeals. It was noted that the appellants had no knowledge of the pending appeals at the time of purchase. The court highlighted that under the doctrine of lis pendens, a transferee pendente lite is bound by the final decree and should be allowed to protect their interests by being added as a party. The court emphasized that the presence of the appellants was necessary to effectively adjudicate the appeals since they had acquired substantial interest in the property.

3. High Court's error in concluding the necessity of appellants' presence:
The court found that the High Court erred in concluding that the appellants' presence was not necessary for adjudicating the appeals. The judgment noted that the High Court failed to consider that the appellants, as transferees pendente lite, had a substantial interest in the property and their presence was crucial to protect their rights. The court reiterated that the appellants' applications for substitution should have been allowed to enable them to contest the matter on merits.

4. High Court's error in treating substitution applications as addition of party:
The judgment criticized the High Court for treating the substitution applications as applications for addition of party. The court clarified that the applications were for substitution since the original owners had sold the property to the appellants and had no further interest in the litigation. The court emphasized that the High Court's error in this regard rendered the appellants non-suited and remediless, which was unjust.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's orders and permitting the appellants to be substituted as parties in the pending second appeals. The court held that the presence of the appellants was necessary to decide the appeals on merits and that the High Court had committed a serious error in rejecting the substitution applications. The judgment reinforced the principles of lis pendens and the necessity of including transferees pendente lite in ongoing litigation to protect their interests.

← Previous Next →