Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Fabrica Da Igreja De Vasco, purchased the suit property from the original defendant No.1 during the pendency of a suit filed by respondent No.1 (original plaintiff) seeking a declaration of right to lease and challenging a lease deed. The trial court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the petitioner as defendant No.3. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the purchaser pendente lite is a necessary and proper party whose interest is directly affected by the suit. The court emphasized that impleadment avoids multiplicity of proceedings and enables effective adjudication. The court also noted that the purchaser is bound by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and is entitled to be heard. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Impleadment of Party - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Necessary Party - Purchaser pendente lite is a necessary and proper party to the suit as his interest is directly affected by the outcome of the litigation. The court held that impleadment avoids multiplicity of proceedings and enables effective adjudication. (Paras 7-12)
B) Transfer of Property Act - Lis Pendens - Section 52 - Purchaser pendente lite is bound by the decree and is entitled to be heard. The court observed that the purchaser's rights are subject to the result of the suit, and his presence is necessary for complete and final determination of the issues. (Paras 13-15)
C) Civil Procedure Code - Multiplicity of Proceedings - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - The court held that impleadment of the purchaser pendente lite would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure that all disputes are resolved in one go. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the application for impleadment of the petitioner (purchaser pendente lite) as a party defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order allowing impleadment of the petitioner as defendant No.3. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- Section 52 Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- lis pendens
- necessary party
- impleadment
- multiplicity of proceedings
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (03) 114
WRIT PETITION NO. 100 OF 2023
Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Mr. Shailesh Henriques, Ms. Shaizeen Shaikh for Petitioner; Ms. Flavia Mesquita for Respondent No.1
Fabrica Da Igreja De Vasco, Thr. Its Attorney Mr. Romald Colaco
M/s. Paul Dias & Sons, Thr. Its Managing Partner William Dias and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order allowing impleadment of a purchaser pendente lite as a party defendant.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (purchaser pendente lite) sought to quash the trial court order dated 24.01.2023 allowing the plaintiff's application for impleadment of the petitioner as defendant No.3.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the trial court's order allowing his impleadment as a party defendant in a suit for declaration and lease rights.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco) allowed the application (Exhibit D-185) filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, impleading the petitioner as defendant No.3.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the impleadment of the petitioner as a party defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Whether the petitioner, being a purchaser pendente lite, is a necessary and proper party to the suit.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the impleadment was not necessary as the petitioner's rights are subject to the outcome of the suit and the petitioner can protect his interests separately.
Respondent No.1 argued that the petitioner is a necessary party as the suit property was purchased during the pendency of the suit and the petitioner's presence is essential for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
A purchaser pendente lite is a necessary and proper party to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as his interest is directly affected by the outcome of the litigation. Impleadment avoids multiplicity of proceedings and enables effective adjudication. The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 binds the purchaser, who is entitled to be heard.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to an Order dated 24.01.2023 passed on the application dated 09.01.2023 at Exhibit D-185.
The Petitioner is the original Defendant No.3.
The Defendant No.1 sold the suit property by registered Sale Deed dated 22.04.2021 to the Petitioner-Defendant No.3.
The trial court allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of the petitioner.
The purchaser pendente lite is a necessary and proper party to the suit.
Procedural History
The original plaintiff (respondent No.1) filed a suit on 14.01.2008 for declaration and lease rights. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant No.1 sold the suit property to the petitioner on 22.04.2021. On 09.06.2022, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of the petitioner, which was allowed by the trial court on 24.01.2023. The petitioner challenged this order by filing the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 1 Rule 10
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 52
- Constitution of India: Article 227
