Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar, J., dismissed a writ petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby her application for impleadment as a party, under Order 1 Rule 10(2), CPC was rejected.
The main issue that arose before the Court was whether a subsequent purchaser, pendente lite, is a necessary party in the partition suit.
The Court observed that the doctrine of lis pendence embodies a public policy that it is necessary for the administration of justice that the decision of a Court in a suit must bind all who claim an interest in the property and also those who derive title pendente lite. The Court referred to the judgment of Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon, (2005) 11 SCC 403 and observed that a transferee pendente lite can be impleaded as a necessary party only if his/her interest in the subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not merely peripheral. While impleading a transferee pendente lite courts must be cautious and vigilant because impleadment of a stranger to a suit must be for a substantial cause. In this case, the petitioner did not purchase the land from one of the co-sharers of the property, rather she purchased land from her vendors who were parties to the pending suit.
The Court held that the petitioner has no right to equities and the trial judge has rightly dismissed her application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC. The writ petition was dismissed by the Court. [Anita Soni v. Mina Devi,2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 1155, order dated 27-08-2018]
