IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2305 of 2006 BAIDYANATH PRASAD son of Ram Bhuwan Sah, resident of village Isuapur, P.S. Isuapur, District Saran… …Defendant/Petitioner Versus 1. DEONATH SAH son of Malu Sah, 2. Jagdish Sah son of Baldeo Sah, both residents of village Isuapur, P.S. Isuapur, District Saran… …Plaintiffs/Opposite Parties Ist Set 3. Md. Juber Ansari, 4. Md. Jakir Hussain, both sons of Md. Jahir Hussain, residents of village Isuapur, P.S. Isuapur, District Saran, District Saran…Defendants/Opposite Parties 2nd set For the Petitioner: M/s Dineshwar Mishra, R.R. Sahay,Surendra Mishra, Advocates. For Opp.Party No.1: Mr. Arun Kumar Rai, Advocate. ----------- 4 04.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no. 1. The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2006 passed by the Munsif IV, Chapra, in Title Suit No. 25/1993, whereby his petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Code”) to implead the transferees, who purchased some of the disputed land from the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, as defendants in the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 2 the plaintiff had sold the part of the disputed land belonging to Khata No. 261 plot no. 1287 measuring one katha on 06.08.2005 to one Bodhan Rai and Ramjee Rai sons of Heera Rai and by executing a registered sale deed and in view of that the court below ought to have impleaded them as parties in the suit. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 has submitted that any transaction during the pendency of the suit would be in teeth of the principle of lis pendens and as such, the transferees were not the necessary parties in the suit. The court below on consideration of rival submissions had come to the conclusion that the transfer during the pendency would be hit by the principle of lis pendens and as such, the transferees are not the necessary parties to be impleaded in the suit and, thus, had dismissed the petition aforesaid. By now it is well settled that the transferee pendente lite without taking leave of the court cannot be impleaded as party in all cases. In Sunil Singh v. Kiran Girhotra and others, reported in 2008(1) Patna Law Journal Reports(SC), 172, the Supreme Court has held 3 that ordinarily, a transferee pendente lite without leave of the court cannot be impleaded as a party. Furthermore, the plaintiff in the suit is the dominus litis. If he calculates to take risk in the matter, the court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, in Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon and Another, reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court, 2209, the Supreme Court had allowed the substitution of purchasers on account of sale in place of their vendor when the transferee himself came before the court and filed a petition under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code for their substitution in place of their vendor after the transaction. In the present case, the plaintiff, who is dominus litis, is not ready to implead the transferees as a party- defendants and is ready to take a calculated risk and at the same time, the transferees themselves have not approached the court by filing a petition for their impleadment in the suit, rather a petition has been filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code on behalf of the contesting defendant in the suit, who has not even transferred the part of the suit property, rather the same was transferred by the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the 4 opinion that the trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the prayer of the defendant- petitioner. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 drew the attention of this Court that the title suit is of the year 1993, and as such, the same may be disposed of with utmost expedition. The trial court, thus, is directed to take earnest steps for expeditious disposal of Title Suit No. 25 of 1993. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)