AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aggrieved of order dated 01.12.2010 passed in Title Suit No.159 of 2009 by which applications under Order I Rule 10Â and Order VI Rule 17
CPC read with section 151 C.P.C have been dismissed, the applicant has approached this Court.
By an order dated 27.01.2011 operation of the impugned order dated 01.12.2010 was stayed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter this
writ petition never came on Board and it was listed only on 26.03.2018 when the petitioner had gone unrepresented.
Contending that a transferee pendente-lite would be a representative of the party from whom the property has been purchased, referring to a
decision in “Savitri Devi Vrs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others†reported in (1999) 2 SCC 577, Sri Lalit Kumar Lal, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner who has purchased a part of schedule 'A' properties has substantial interest in the suit property
which may be affected by out come of Title Suit No. 159 of 2009. 4. Title Suit No.159 of 2009 was instituted for a decree of declaration of the
plaintiffs' right and title over the schedule 'A' properties by evicting the defendants and for Khas possession over the suit properties to the plaintiffs.
Validity of the Registered Sale-Deed No.9112 of 1968 and Sada Deed of Agreement dated 13.09.1968 was also challenged by the plaintiffs. During
the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs transferred a part of the schedule 'A' properties in favour of the applicant. Evidently, the applicant shall be bound
by the decision in Title Suit No.159 of 2009. Application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC was filed by the petitioner for adding it as a plaintiff in the suit.
In a suit which was instituted by Shambhu Ram and five others for a declaration of their right and title over the schedule 'A' properties, the
petitioner, who claims purchase of a part of schedule 'A' properties from the plaintiffs, cannot claim its addition as a plaintiff in the pending suit on the
ground that it has become a representative of the plaintiffs. In the trial of the suit the applicant cannot plead any fact other than execution of sale deed
in its favour. Sale by the plaintiffs of a part of schedule 'A' properties to the applicant would be hit by lis pendence. Sale of a part of the suit properties
was an act on the part of the plaintiffs to create encumbrance on schedule 'A' properties. Petitioner's right flowing from the sale deed is not the
subject matter in the suit. At this stage it is pertinent to indicate that had the purchaser being defendant the position in law would have been different.
In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 01.12.2010, the writ petition is dismissed.
Interim order dated 27.01.2011 stands vacated.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial court forthwith through 'Fax'.
      Â