2009 (3) TMI 1084 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for impleadment as plaintiff No. 2.
2. Right to unconditional withdrawal of the suit.
3. Interest of the petitioner in the subject matter of the suit.
4. Applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (T.P. Act).
5. Payment of Court-fees by the petitioner.

Summary:

1. Application for Impleadment as Plaintiff No. 2:
The petitioner filed an application u/s Order 1, Rule 10 and Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) to be impleaded as plaintiff No. 2 in Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 2006. The trial Court rejected this application, which was challenged in this petition. The petitioner argued that he had purchased the suit land from the original plaintiff and was interested in the relief prayed for in the suit. The Court found that the petitioner was not a stranger but had a substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit and the relief sought.

2. Right to Unconditional Withdrawal of the Suit:
The original plaintiff's heirs filed a pursis to withdraw the suit unconditionally. The Court observed that an unwilling litigant cannot be compelled to continue with litigation. However, the Court distinguished between withdrawal of the suit and withdrawal from the suit, allowing the original plaintiff to detach himself from the litigation while permitting the petitioner to proceed with the suit as plaintiff No. 2.

3. Interest of the Petitioner in the Subject Matter of the Suit:
The petitioner argued that the sale-deed dated 29-1-2005, which was challenged in the suit, affected his subsequent purchase of the suit land. The Court agreed that the petitioner had a legitimate interest in the cause of action and the relief sought in the suit, making him a proper party to the litigation.

4. Applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (T.P. Act):
The respondents contended that the petitioner's purchase was hit by Section 52 of the T.P. Act (doctrine of lis pendens). The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon, which held that a transferee pendente lite could be joined as a party if his interest in the subject matter was substantial. The Court found that the petitioner's interest was substantial and not just peripheral.

5. Payment of Court-fees by the Petitioner:
The respondents argued that the petitioner could not be impleaded without paying Court-fees. The Court held that technical or procedural issues like Court-fees should not prevent the petitioner from being impleaded. The Court stated that Civil Courts have ample powers to address such issues within the four corners of the law.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 10-9-2007 was quashed and set aside. The petitioner was permitted to be impleaded as plaintiff No. 2 in Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 2006. The Court made the rule absolute with no order as to costs. The request for a stay of the order was denied.