IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2049 of 2009 (M/S) 1. Yashpal S/O Hansraj, 2. Smt. Darshna Devi W/O Yashpal 3. Rajeev S/O Yashpal, All R/O Lrishi Ashram, Bhopatwala Kalan, Saptasarovar Marg, Haridwar, District Haridwar. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. Shiksha Sudhar Samiti, Sansthapak Jagdacharya, Swami Nardanand Saraswati Nemisaranya Uttar Pradesh through Shri Shivraj Singh Mantri Samiti. 2. 2. Jagat Gururamandandacharya Smarak Sewa Nyas Saptrishi Road Bhupatwala and District Haridwar. … Respondents. Sri Lokpal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Date December 04, 2009. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 14-5-2009 and 26-8-2009 (Annexure No. 5 and 6 to the petition). By the order dated 14-5-2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), I F.T.C. Haridwar in Original Suit No. 206 of 1989, the application (paper no. 1666-A) filed by the plaintiff- respondent no.1 was allowed on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, the respondent no.2 had purchased the property from the plaintiff-respondent no.1. By the order dated 26- 8-2009, the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 14-5-2009 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge/ IV F.T.C., Haridwar. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners filed objections against the impleadment application before the trial court. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), I FTC Haridwar, after considering the objections, has allowed the impleadment application subject to payment of cost of Rs. 300/- by his order dated 14-5-2009. 2 Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners went up in revision, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 74 of 2009 Yashpal and others Vs. Shiksha Sudhar Samiti and others, before the District Judge Haridwar, which was ultimately transferred to the court of the Additional District Judge/ IV F.T.C. Haridwar for disiposal. The learned revisional court after hearing both the parties the revision as not maintainable and it has also been observed that even otherwise the order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any error of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Lok Pal Singh, has contended that the transfer of property pendente lite without leave of the court is legal. Learned counsel has relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hassan Sabeb and another [(2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 191]. I have perused the said judgment. The Apex Court in paragraph no. 9 has held as under:- “9. It is not disputed that the present petitioner purchased the property during pendency of the suit and without seeking leave of the court as required by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner being a transferee pendente lite without leave of the court cannot, as of right, seek impleadment as a party in the suits which are long pending since 1983. It is true that when the application for joinder based on transfer pendente lite is made, the transferee should ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interest. But in the instant case, the trial court has assigned cogent reasons for rejecting such joinder stating that the suit is long pending since 1983 and prima facie the action of the alienation does not appear to be bona fide. The trial court saw an attempt on the part of the petitioner to complicate and delay the pending suits.” Order 22, Rule 10 (1) CPC reads as under:- “10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit.- (1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. 3 The ratio of the judgment in the case of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon (supra) is that if the Court thinks it proper, the application for impleadment of transferee as party to the suit can be allowed by the Court. In the case at hand, the transfer of the property was made with the permission of the court and the trial court has imposed cost upon the plaintiff while allowing the impleadment application. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the case at hand it is not a simpliciter impleadment. The respondent no. 2 has also amended the plaint. Along with the impleadment, the amendment was also allowed. No opportunity has been given to file additional written statement to the defendants. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the trial court has allowed the application for impleadment because the transferee has a right to continue in the suit and he has been rightly ordered to be joined as party. I find no error of law in the impugned orders passed by the two courts below. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. However, since no opportunity has been given to file additional written statement to the petitioners so far as the reply of amended paragraph is concerned, the petitioners may make an application before the trial court. If the application is made with a prayer to file additional written statement, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), I FTC Haridwar shall grant at least three weeks’ time to file additional written statement. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5