1994 (5) TMI 289 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Pendente lite purchasers' application under Order I, Rule 10, and Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC.
2. Plaintiff's preliminary objection regarding the appropriate legal remedy.
3. Doctrine of lis pendens and its application.
4. Rights of pendente lite purchasers to be joined as parties.
5. Judicial discretion in adding parties to a suit.
6. Timing and procedural aspects of applications under CPC provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Pendente lite purchasers' application under Order I, Rule 10, and Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC:
The revision was filed by pendente lite purchasers against the order dismissing their application under Order I, Rule 10, and Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC. The trial court had rejected their application on the grounds that the hearing was closed and the case was fixed for pronouncement of the judgment. The purchasers argued that they were unaware of the pending litigation and that the vendors had received full consideration without disclosing the suit's pendency. They contended that they should be allowed to be impleaded as parties to protect their interests, as they would be bound by any decree passed in the suit.

2. Plaintiff's preliminary objection regarding the appropriate legal remedy:
The plaintiff's counsel raised a preliminary objection that the application for impleading as a party was essentially under Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC, for leave of the Court to continue the suit on devolution of interest. It was argued that against the order refusing to grant leave, an appeal lies under Order XLIII, Rule 1(1), CPC, and not a revision under Section 115, CPC. The plaintiff also contended that the application was rightly dismissed due to the unreasonable delay by the purchasers and the fact that the defendant had no interest at the time of executing the sale deeds.

3. Doctrine of lis pendens and its application:
The Court discussed the principle of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which aims to prevent assignments inconsistent with the rights established in a suit. The Supreme Court in Nagubai ruled that Section 52 subordinates the sale pendente lite to the rights based on the decree in the suit. The doctrine of lis pendens binds not only the parties to the suit but also purchasers pendente lite.

4. Rights of pendente lite purchasers to be joined as parties:
The Court referred to several precedents, including Sm. Saila Bala Dassi, where it was held that a pendente lite purchaser should be given an opportunity to protect their rights. The Court emphasized that the discretion to allow a party to be impleaded must be exercised judicially, considering factors such as due diligence and the potential impact on the purchaser's rights.

5. Judicial discretion in adding parties to a suit:
The Court highlighted that under Order I, Rule 10(2), CPC, the Court has the discretion to add any party at any stage of the proceedings if their presence is necessary for a complete adjudication of the questions involved. The Court must ensure that substantial justice is done and avoid situations where a collusive decree might be obtained against an interested person without their involvement.

6. Timing and procedural aspects of applications under CPC provisions:
The Court noted that the expression "at any stage of the proceedings" in Order I, Rule 10, CPC, allows for the addition of parties even before the final decree is passed. The trial Court's rejection of the application solely on the ground that the case was reserved for judgment was deemed incorrect. The Court also pointed out that since the Presiding Officer had been transferred and the successor would have to hear arguments afresh, the hearing could not be considered concluded.

Conclusion:
The revision was allowed, and the trial Court's order was set aside. The case was remanded to the trial Court to reconsider the application under Order I, Rule 10, and Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC, afresh in accordance with the law. The plaintiff was also given the opportunity to demonstrate that the transfer was null and void, thereby questioning the necessity of adding the purchasers as parties.