TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (12) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the respondents in terms of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC'). The applicants are transferees of the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of contract against one Rajeshwari Devi, respondent No. 3. The suit is numbered as Title Suit No. 88 of 1991. The prayer in the suit was for a decree against the defendant for specific performance of agreements dated 25.12.1986 and 27.12.1990 by directing to the defendant No. 1 to execute registered sale deeds. Further declaration was sought for to the effect that said defendant No. 1 had no right to execute four sale deeds in favo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchased the property on 3.12.1997. Ahilaya Jha applicant had purchased the portion of the suit property on 9.12.2000. The trial Court, therefore, rejected the prayer for impleadment. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2006 respondents Manik Roy and Ahilaya Jha filed a writ petition before the High Court which allowed the writ petition holding that the respondents' vendors were not parties to the suit and there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest and therefore they are required to be added as parties in the suit for the ends of justice. The High Court also noted that the trial Court had not considered the effect of the fact that the respondents' vendors are not parties to the suit and there was no represen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. 7. In Bibi Zubaida Khatoon's case (supra) on which learned Counsel for respondents had placed reliance in fact goes against the stand of the respondents. Though a casual reading of paragraph 9 supports the stand taken by the respondents, it is to be noted that the factual position was entirely different. In fact a cross suit has been filed in the suit in that case. Respondents being transferees pendente lite without leave of the court cannot as of right seek impleadment in the suit which was in the instant case pending for a very long time. In fact in para 10 of the j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rakash University and Ors. [2001]3SCR1129 it was noted as follows: 7. Under Rule 10 Order 22 of the Code, when there has been a devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the court, be continued by or against persons upon whom such interest has devolved and this entitles the person who has acquired an interest in the subject-matter of the litigation by an assignment or creation or devolution of interest pendente lite or suitor or any other person interested, to apply to the court for leave to continue the suit. But it does not follow that it is obligatory upon them to do so. If a party does not ask for leave, he takes the obvious risk that the suit may not be properly conducted by the plaintiff ....