IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2351 of 2006 SUMITRA DEVI W/O HIRDAYA NAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE USARI KHRD, P.O. NEURA, P.S. SHAHPUR, DISTRICT PATNA, AT PRESENT WEST LOHANIPUR, P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. MANOJ KUMAR SON OF JAGDISH TIWARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOERI BIGHA, P.O. DHIBRA, P.S. JANIPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. 2. RAJ NATH RAI, SON OF LATE GULABCHARI RAI. 3. MOST ASHA DEVI WIFE OF LATE YOGENDRA RAI 4. TINKU KUMAR 5. PINKU KUMAR 6. RINKU KUMAR, ALL SONS OF LATE YOGENDRA RAI, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAGWATIPUR TOLA BHASINCHAK, P.O. NEURA, P.S. SHAHPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. 7. SMT. RANJEETA KUMARI WIFE OF DEVENDRA DUTT, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA WEST LOHANIPUR, P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Bishwa Nath Choudhary, Advocate. 2/ 17-09-2009 Heard Mr. Bishwa Nath Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision is directed against the order dated 22.09.2006 passed by the Sub-Judge IIIrd, Patna in Title Suit No. 224 of 2003 whereby a petition filed on behalf of opposite party no.7, under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that opposite party no.7 had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit without taking leave from the court concerned and as such this petition for impleading him as a party under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C., was not proper. Therefore, the transaction would hit by the - 2 - principle of lis pendens and as such he was not a necessary party to be added in the suit. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner place reliance upon a decision rendered in the case of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vrs. Nabi Hassan Saheb & Anr., reported in 2004 (1) PLJR (SC) 66 wherein it has been held with regard to transaction that the transferee pendent elite without taking leave of the Court cannot be impleaded as a party in all cases. However, in Amit Kumar Shaw and Anr Vs Farida Khatoon and Another reported in AIR 2005 SC 2209 the Supreme Court has held that though the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the suit, however, the Court has a discretion to implead him a party. The transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. The relevant passage from the aforesaid decision is being quoted hereunder: “Para-16 : The doctrin of lis pendens applies only where the lis is pending before a Court. Further pending the suit, the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the suit, though the Court has a discretion to make him a party. But the transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. A transferee pendente lite - 3 - to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, whether the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant, the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party; under Order XXII Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite may be jointed as party. As already noticed, the Court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as party to enable him to protect his interests. The Court has held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case.” In this case the transferee himself has come before the Court for impleading him as party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. Even though the petition was not filed under the provision of Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. the petition could well be considered to have been filed under the aforesaid provision itself. The court below has held that the vendor of Opposite Party - 4 - No.2 was in possession and thereafter on purchase the transferee has come in possession of the suit property. Thus, though the plaintiff is not obliged to implead each and every subsequent transferee in the suit concerned, however, the petition for addition of party filed under Order 22 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. could be allowed if the trial Court was convinced that the interest of the transferee was substantial and not just peripheral. In Anita Kuwar Vrs. Chandra Bhushan Singh, 2009(3) PLJR 194 this court has not allowed the prayer of impleading the purchaser for the reason that he himself did not approach the court rather one of the defendants in the suit had filed a petition for adding him as party. In that view of the matter I find no jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 22.09.2006. As a result, this Civil Revision application is dismissed. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J ) BTiwary/