Lis pendens and impleadment in partition suits: pendente lite purchasers may be added even after the case is posted for judgment.

Pendente lite purchasers in a partition suit may seek impleadment under Order I Rule 10 or leave under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, because a transferee during litigation remains subject to the decree under the doctrine of lis pendens in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Their presence may be necessary for complete adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, especially where a preliminary decree in partition may affect their direct interest. Discretion under both provisions must be exercised judicially, with regard to the stage of the suit and the nature of the interest claimed. The fact that the matter was posted for judgment, by itself, did not justify rejection of impleadment in the circumstances discussed.

---

---

Issues: Whether pendente lite purchasers could be impleaded in a pending partition suit under Order I, Rule 10 or Order XXII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure despite the matter having been posted for pronouncement of judgment, and whether the refusal to add them as parties was justified.

Analysis: Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 embodies the doctrine of lis pendens, by which a transfer during the pendency of litigation remains subordinate to the decree ultimately passed, though it is not void as between the parties to the transfer. A transferee pendente lite may be bound by the result of the suit, and justice may require that such transferee be given an opportunity to protect his interest. The Court considered that under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a person whose presence is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication may be added at any stage of the proceedings, and that under Order XXII, Rule 10, an assignee or transferee of the subject-matter may seek leave to continue the suit. The discretion in both provisions must be exercised judicially, keeping in view the nature of the litigation, the stage of the suit, the effect of a preliminary decree in a partition matter, and the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The mere fact that the case had been posted for judgment did not, in the facts, justify rejection where the transferees asserted a direct and substantial interest in the subject-matter and the trial Court had not addressed the real consequences of exclusion.

Conclusion: The application for impleadment ought not to have been rejected on the sole ground that the case was reserved for judgment; the petitioners were entitled to have their request reconsidered in accordance with law.

---