Transferee pendente lite may be impleaded to protect a direct interest in a pending cancellation suit.

A transferee pendente lite with a substantial and direct interest in a pending suit for cancellation of a sale deed may be impleaded as plaintiff No. 2 in the court's discretion. Prima facie satisfaction is sufficient at the impleadment stage; no detailed inquiry is required. The original plaintiff's withdrawal from the litigation does not bar a transferee who remains interested in the outcome from continuing the suit. Technical objections relating to court fees, amendment, limitation, or alleged collusion do not defeat impleadment where the transferee's interest is directly affected. The refusal to implead was set aside and joinder was permitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a transferee pendente lite, claiming an interest in the subject matter of a pending suit for cancellation of a sale deed, could be impleaded as plaintiff No. 2 under the Code of Civil Procedure despite a withdrawal pursis filed by the original plaintiff.

Analysis: The petitioner had purchased the suit property from the original plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The relief in the suit was cancellation of an earlier sale deed, and the fate of that sale deed would directly affect the petitioner's subsequent purchase. On a prima facie view, the petitioner was not a stranger but a person substantially interested in the cause of action as well as the ultimate relief sought in the suit. The Court relied on the principles governing impleadment of transferees pendente lite and noted that such joinder depends on judicial discretion, to be exercised on prima facie satisfaction, with no detailed inquiry at that stage. The original plaintiff could withdraw from the litigation, but that did not prevent the petitioner, who had a subsisting interest, from continuing the suit. Technical objections regarding court-fees, amendment of pleadings, limitation, or alleged collusion were held not to defeat the substantive right to be impleaded at that stage.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to be impleaded as plaintiff No. 2.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order refusing impleadment was set aside and the petitioner's joinder in the pending suit was permitted, leaving the substantive dispute to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferee pendente lite who shows a substantial and direct interest in the subject matter and relief of the suit may be impleaded in the Court's discretion to protect that interest, even if the original plaintiff seeks to withdraw from the litigation.

---