TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (5) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18-9-1991 in favour of the petitioners, transferring 11 Bighas and 6 Biswas which was part of the suit land of 17 Bighasf 16 Biswas, situated at village Khuri, District Bhind. Out of the two sale-deeds, one was for ₹ 87,000/- and another was for ₹ 35,500/-. After execution of the sale-deeds and transfer of the part of the suit land, the defendants absented themselves in the suit. The trial Court proceeded ex parte and closed the hearing after recording evidence on 11-3-. 1992 and fixed the case for pronouncing judgment on 14-3-1992. The petitioners having come to know that suit is pending and the judgment is not pronounced, applied on 22-4-1992 for impleading them as a party as defendants, have transferred their interest and the petitioners are vitally interested in the judgment which may ultimately be passed. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. The trial Court rejected the application stating that as the hearing is closed and the case is fixed for pronouncement of the judgment and also held that the petitioners are not necessary parties to the suit. Hence, this revision. 3. Shri Roman, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the petitioners a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the sale deeds so executed are null and void, hence, the petitioners were not necessary parties, therefore also the order is right. Learned counsel cited few decisions and also submitted written submissions. 5. Before I deal with the contentions, it would be appropriate to State the principle of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, for short, the 'TP Act', and the right of lis pendens purchaser to be joined as a party to a pending litigation. Section 52 intends to prevent one party to a suit making an assignment inconsistent with the rights may be established in the suit and which may require a further party to be impleaded in order to make effective the Court's decree as the doctrine of lis pendens not only binds the parties to the suit, but also purchasers pendente lite in relation to the subject-matter of the suit. The Supreme Court in the case of Nagubai, AIR 1956 SC 593 ruled that Section 52 does not wipe out the sale pendente lite altogether but to subordinate it to the rights based on the decree in the suit. The Supreme Court also considered the effect of the words used in Section 52 "so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the suit as he himself desires. It was further observed that Order XXII, Rule 10 does not cast any obligation on the transferee to become a party to the suit because he may think that his interests are protected by the original defendant. In other words, the transferee is not obliged to apply for being made a party. The fact remains that a decree to be passed in that suit against the original defendant will operate against the transferee as well. Thus, essentially it is the choice of the transferee whether to apply for leave of the Court or not. 9. This Court in the case of Dharamsingh v. Jalima 1980 JLJ 738, while considering an application of a transferee pendente lite in a suit where the transferor filed an application for compromise in the suit and before decree could be passed, has taken the view that the Court has to exercise the discretion judicially. The application should be allowed as transferor has no interest in the suit property as he had already parted with all his interest therein . In Baijanti Bai v. Prago (AIR 1990 MP 370) :(1991 JLJ 138 following the decision in Dharamshing's case (supra), this Court further held that the application should be allowed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if a person is vitally interested in the litigation and ultimate decree which may be passed in the said litigation vitally affecting his rights, he may apply to be added as a party under Order I, Rule 10(2), CPC. However, the Court, while considering the application under Order I, Rule 10(2) or under Order XXII, Rule 10, has to exercise the discretion judicially. 14. It is further clear from reading Order I, Rule 10, wherein the expression "at any stage of the proceedings" used and in Order IX, Rule 7, CPC, the word "hearing" is used. The two expressions carry a different meaning. This Court had an occasion in the case of Badri Prasad v. S. Kripal Singh AIR 1981 MP 228 to consider while considering an application under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC and distinguishing the case of the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh (supra) has taken the view that as the suit commences by the presentation of plaint under Order IV Rule I and it stands disposed of so far as the trial Court is concerned, on the pronouncement of judgment under Order XX, Rule 3. This being the position regarding the commencement of the suit and its termination in the trial Court, the irresistible c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s afresh in the case. In this situation, even if the reasoning of Arjun Singh's case (supra) is applied, then the hearing cannot be said to be concluded as the hearing of the suit means the hearing at which the Judge would be taking evidence or hearing arguments, or would have to consider the questions relating to the determination of the suit which would enable him finally to come to an adjudication upon it. Therefore, in such a situation, even the application under Order IX, Rule 7, would be maintainable. See, the decision of this Court in Bhojraj v. Diwarkar (1965) MPLJSN 74; Mankunarbai v. Girjabai 1981 IMPWN 56; and in Kalawati v. Jagdish Prasad (1991) I MPWN 123. Therefore, the reliance of Shri Roman on an unreported decision of this Court in the case of the Union of India v. Raghuraj Singh (Civil Revision No. 112 of 1984, decided on 26-11-1984), is appropriate wherein, in a similar situation when the case was posted for pronouncement of judgment, but the judgment could not be pronounced and the trying Judge was transferred and, therefore, the Court observed that as the successor Judge shall have to reopen the case for arguments and if the case is reopened for arguments, ....