The provision of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure
Code permits the Court to add any person whether as a plaintiff or
defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in
order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon
and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Merely because the
transfer, during the pendency of the suit, is hit by the principle of lis
pendens that cannot operate as bar for the Court to exercise power
under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code to permit
subsequent purchaser for being added as a plaintiff. The petitioner has
stated that he has stepped into the shoes of the plaintiffs and hence, he
needs to be provided an opportunity to prosecute or contest the suit, so
as to settle all questions involved in the suit. The trial Court has erred
in rejecting the application Exhibit 37, which needs to be quashed and
set aside.
5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
20112012
passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bramhapuri below
Exhibit 37 in Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2010 is hereby quashed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO .2499 OF 2013
Yogesh s/o Balaji Misar,
VERSUS
Keshav Vistari Sontakke,
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : 18 th JANUARY, 2014.
Citation;2014(3) ALLMR 328 Bom
1. Notices for final disposal of the matter were issued by this
Court on 0952013.
In spite of service of notices, none appears for the
respondents. It is, therefore, not necessary for this Court to issue fresh
notices.
2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard Shri
B.M. Kharkate, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. By the impugned order dated 20112012
passed by the
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bramhapuri, the application Exhibit 37 filed in
Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2010 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with
Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code by the petitioner for being
joined as plaintiff in the suit, has been rejected. The trial Court has
held that on the date when the suit was filed the petitioner was not the
owner of the suit property, but the original plaintiffs had claimed the
ownership of the suit property. The petitioner claims to have purchased
the suit property during the pendency of the suit by registered saledeed
dated 2672011.
The trial Court has held that the transfers
during the pendency of the suit are hit by principle of lis pendens
incorporated under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has
been held that in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the
presence of such person may be necessary in order to enable the court
effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the suit.
4. The provision of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure
Code permits the Court to add any person whether as a plaintiff or
defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in
order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon
and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Merely because the
transfer, during the pendency of the suit, is hit by the principle of lis
pendens that cannot operate as bar for the Court to exercise power
under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code to permit
subsequent purchaser for being added as a plaintiff. The petitioner has
stated that he has stepped into the shoes of the plaintiffs and hence, he
needs to be provided an opportunity to prosecute or contest the suit, so
as to settle all questions involved in the suit. The trial Court has erred
in rejecting the application Exhibit 37, which needs to be quashed and
set aside.
5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
20112012
passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bramhapuri below
Exhibit 37 in Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2010 is hereby quashed and
set aside. The application Exhibit 37 filed by the petitioner is allowed
to the extent of permitting the petitioner to be joined as plaintiff in the
suit.
6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
Print Page
Code permits the Court to add any person whether as a plaintiff or
defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in
order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon
and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Merely because the
transfer, during the pendency of the suit, is hit by the principle of lis
pendens that cannot operate as bar for the Court to exercise power
under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code to permit
subsequent purchaser for being added as a plaintiff. The petitioner has
stated that he has stepped into the shoes of the plaintiffs and hence, he
needs to be provided an opportunity to prosecute or contest the suit, so
as to settle all questions involved in the suit. The trial Court has erred
in rejecting the application Exhibit 37, which needs to be quashed and
set aside.
5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
20112012
passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bramhapuri below
Exhibit 37 in Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2010 is hereby quashed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO .2499 OF 2013
Yogesh s/o Balaji Misar,
VERSUS
Keshav Vistari Sontakke,
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : 18 th JANUARY, 2014.
Citation;2014(3) ALLMR 328 Bom
1. Notices for final disposal of the matter were issued by this
Court on 0952013.
In spite of service of notices, none appears for the
respondents. It is, therefore, not necessary for this Court to issue fresh
notices.
2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard Shri
B.M. Kharkate, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. By the impugned order dated 20112012
passed by the
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bramhapuri, the application Exhibit 37 filed in
Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2010 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with
Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code by the petitioner for being
joined as plaintiff in the suit, has been rejected. The trial Court has
held that on the date when the suit was filed the petitioner was not the
owner of the suit property, but the original plaintiffs had claimed the
ownership of the suit property. The petitioner claims to have purchased
the suit property during the pendency of the suit by registered saledeed
dated 2672011.
The trial Court has held that the transfers
during the pendency of the suit are hit by principle of lis pendens
incorporated under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has
been held that in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the
presence of such person may be necessary in order to enable the court
effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the suit.
4. The provision of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure
Code permits the Court to add any person whether as a plaintiff or
defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in
order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon
and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Merely because the
transfer, during the pendency of the suit, is hit by the principle of lis
pendens that cannot operate as bar for the Court to exercise power
under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code to permit
subsequent purchaser for being added as a plaintiff. The petitioner has
stated that he has stepped into the shoes of the plaintiffs and hence, he
needs to be provided an opportunity to prosecute or contest the suit, so
as to settle all questions involved in the suit. The trial Court has erred
in rejecting the application Exhibit 37, which needs to be quashed and
set aside.
5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
20112012
passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bramhapuri below
Exhibit 37 in Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2010 is hereby quashed and
set aside. The application Exhibit 37 filed by the petitioner is allowed
to the extent of permitting the petitioner to be joined as plaintiff in the
suit.
6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment