TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Denies Petitioner's Joinder Requests Due to Transferee Pendente Lite Status and Procedural Non-Compliance.</h1> <h3>Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Versus Nabi Hassan Saheb</h3> The HC upheld the trial court's decision to reject the petitioner's applications for impleadment as a co-plaintiff and defendant in separate suits, citing ... Revisions u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Applications for impleadment, joinder as a party, and amendment of pleadings under Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10, and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Petitioner purchased the property during pendencey of the suit and without seeking leave of the court as required by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act - HELD THAT:- 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 party to enable him to protect his interest. But in 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. The statement of law by this Court in the cases of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh [2001 (7) TMI 1278 - SUPREME COURT] clearly shows that the trial court has rightly exercised its discretion in rejecting the three applications for impleadment of the transferee pendente-lite as party to the suits and for amendment of the pleadings. The High Court was also justified in refusing to interfere with the order of the trial court. Consequently, there is absolutely no merit in any of these appeals. They are, accordingly, dismissed with costs to be borne by the petitioner of the contesting respondents. Issues Involved:The judgment involves issues related to applications for impleadment, joinder as a party, and amendment of pleadings under Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10, and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Impleadment Application:The petitioner sought impleadment as a co-plaintiff in one suit and as a defendant in another suit under Order 1 Rule 10. The trial court rejected the prayer for joinder, citing that the property was purchased during the pendency of the suit, and the decree passed would bind the transferee pendente-lite. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code, declined to interfere with the trial court's decision.Joinder as Party:The petitioner, a transferee pendente-lite, sought joinder in two suits for redemption of mortgage and specific performance of an Agreement of Sale. The trial court rejected the applications under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17, stating that the suit was long pending since 1983, and the alienation did not appear bona fide. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to seek leave of the court as required by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.Legal Disputes and Rulings:The petitioner argued that despite being a transferee pendente-lite, she should have been allowed to join the suits and bring subsequent events on record through amendment of pleadings. However, the trial court's rejection was based on the long pendency of the suits and doubts regarding the bona fide nature of the alienation. The High Court concurred with the trial court's reasoning, supported by the decision in Savinder Singh vs. Dalip Singh & Ors. The court emphasized that the transferee pendente-lite without court leave cannot automatically seek impleadment in pending suits.Key Legal Principles:The judgment highlighted the importance of obtaining court leave for alienation during the pendency of a suit, as per section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It emphasized that the trial court's discretion in rejecting applications for impleadment and amendment of pleadings was justified, as shown in previous case law. The court dismissed the appeals, affirming the trial court's decisions and upholding the principle that a transferee pendente-lite without court leave cannot automatically join and contest pending suits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
