Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Basavaraj @ Madhu, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, on I.A.No.2 in R.A.No.115/2010. The impugned order dismissed the petitioner's application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to implead one P. Shekar, a subsequent purchaser of the suit property during the pendency of the appeal, as the 5th respondent. The petitioner had originally filed a suit in O.S.No.70/1996 for partition and separate possession of joint family properties. The defendants filed a written statement denying the plaint averments. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to the appeal. During the appeal, the petitioner discovered that P. Shekar had purchased the suit property from the defendants and sought his impleadment. The lower appellate court dismissed the application, prompting the writ petition. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the impleadment of P. Shekar as a party to the appeal. The court reasoned that a subsequent purchaser is a necessary and proper party whose interest is directly affected by the outcome of the appeal, and his impleadment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and enable effective adjudication.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Impleadment of Subsequent Purchaser - Order I Rule 10 CPC - Necessary and Proper Party - The court considered whether a subsequent purchaser of suit property during the pendency of an appeal should be impleaded as a party. The court held that a subsequent purchaser is a necessary and proper party to the appeal as his interest is directly affected by the outcome, and his impleadment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and enable effective adjudication. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a subsequent purchaser of suit property during the pendency of an appeal is entitled to be impleaded as a party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, on I.A.No.2 in R.A.No.115/2010 is quashed. The application under Order I Rule 10 CPC is allowed, and P. Shekar is directed to be impleaded as the 5th respondent in the appeal.
Law Points
- Order I Rule 10 CPC
- impleadment of subsequent purchaser
- pendente lite purchaser
- necessary and proper party
- partition suit
- appeal stage
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (10) 2
Writ Petition No. 529/2014 (GM-CPC)
Sri S. Nagaraja (for petitioner), Sri Narayana Shenoy (for R3), Sri M.S. Shankaraguili (for R4), Sri N. Suresh (for R5)
Smt. Suvarnamma, Rajendra B. M., Smt. Rani @ T. M. Sumangla, Smt. Jayamma, P. Shekar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dismissing an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC in a partition suit appeal.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, on I.A.No.2 in R.A.No.115/2010, and impleadment of P. Shekar as a party to the appeal.
Filing Reason
The lower appellate court dismissed the petitioner's application to implead a subsequent purchaser of the suit property during the pendency of the appeal.
Previous Decisions
The trial court dismissed the suit in O.S.No.70/1996. The appeal (R.A.No.115/2010) was pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, when the impleadment application was dismissed.
Issues
Whether a subsequent purchaser of suit property during the pendency of an appeal is entitled to be impleaded as a party under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that P. Shekar, being a subsequent purchaser, is a necessary and proper party to the appeal as his interest is directly affected by the outcome.
Respondents opposed the impleadment, but the judgment does not specify their arguments.
Ratio Decidendi
A subsequent purchaser of suit property during the pendency of an appeal is a necessary and proper party to the appeal under Order I Rule 10 CPC, as his interest is directly affected by the outcome, and his impleadment avoids multiplicity of proceedings and enables effective adjudication.
Judgment Excerpts
This is plaintiff’s writ petition against the order dated 20.12.2013 on I.A.No.2 made in R.A.No.115/2010 on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, dismissing the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure to implead one P.Shekar, Son of late A.D.Puttanna, subsequent purchaser during pendency of the appeal as 5th respondent.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed suit O.S.No.70/1996 for partition and separate possession. The trial court dismissed the suit. The petitioner appealed in R.A.No.115/2010 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur. During the appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead P. Shekar, a subsequent purchaser. The lower appellate court dismissed the application on 20.12.2013. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order I Rule 10
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
