Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) - Order XXII, Rule 10, Order XII, Rule 10, Order I, Rule 10, Section 146; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TP Act”) – Section 52 discussed. Principles governing grant of leave to appeal in an impleadment application made by a third party/transferee pendente lite summarised:
Held: A transferee pendente lite does not have a right to be impleaded in a pending suit and the trial court can allow his / her impleadment either under Order I Rule 10 CPC or under Order XXII Rule 10, CPC after appreciating the specific facts of the case and the material on record – It is not an absolute rule that a transferee pendente lite, by way of leave, in all cases, be allowed to come on record as a party – Since a transferee pendente lite, is an assignee of interest in the property, as per Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, he can seek leave of the Court to come record on his own or at the instance of either party to the suit – If no such leave is sought, transferee pendente lite would be at its own peril and still be bound by the outcome of the concerned proceedings – A transferee pendente lite is governed by Section 52 of TP Act. [Para 58] Held: High Court erred in condoning the delay of 586 days in filing of first appeal by the Respondent No.1 and 2 as they were not at all vigilant of their rights and the High Court should have declined to interfere on the ground of delay itself [Para 23] Held: Though Section 96 and 100 of CPC do no enlist persons who can file an appeal against a decree, a stranger can only file an appeal after he/she is granted leave to appeal by the appellate court on satisfying such court that he is “aggrieved” by the decree sought to be challenged – In this regard, Court relied on various judgments including Sri V.N. Krishna Murthy & Anr. v. Sri Ravikumar & Ors. C.A. No. 2701-2704 of 2020; Adi Pherozshah Gandhi vs. H.M. Seervai, AIR 1971 SC 385; Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha vs. Golcha Properties Private Limited, (1970) 3 SCC 573; State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Amar Singh & Anr., (1974) 2 SCC 70, Baldev Singh vs. Surinder Mohan Sharma & Ors (2003) 1 SCC 34, Srimathi K. Ponnalagu Ammani vs. The State of Madras represented by the Secretary to the Revenue Department, Madras and Ors., AIR 1953 Madras 485, Province of Bombay vs. W.I. Automobile Association, reported in AIR 1949 Bombay 141. [Paras 25-28, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 43]
Held: Mere rejection of impleadment application filed under Order I Rule 10, CPC itself will not disentitle the transferee pendente lite to obtain leave to appeal and the same needs to be examined based on facts of the case. [Para 42]
Concept of “person aggrieved” – Discussed:
Held: “Person aggrieved” would mean a person whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized – Court relied on Shanti Kumar R. Canji vs. Home Insurance Co. of New York, (1974) 2 SCC 387 and State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 592), Indian Bank Limited, Madras vs. Seth Bansiram Jashamal Firm through its Managing Partner, AIR 1934 Mad 360. [Paras 35, 38]
Principles governing “grant of leave to appeal” – Summarised: Held: Though Section 96 and 100 of CPC, which govern filing of first appeal do not enlist as to who can be an “appellant”; it is settled law that a complete stranger cannot be granted leave to file a first appeal unless he satisfies the court that he is a “person aggrieved” i.e., he is prejudicially affected and is bound by the decree – The grievance does not mean a psychological or an imaginary injury or a remote or indirect prejudice. [Para 43]
Court clarified impact of Section 52, TP Act on the interest of the transferee pendente lite:
Held: In light of Section 52 of TP Act, a transfer pendente lite is itself not void but subservient to the outcome of the pending litigation – Reliance placed on Nagubai Ammal & Ors. vs. B. Shama Rao & Ors., AIR 1956 SC 593 and Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj, (2010)
8 SCC 1 and Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd., [2013] 2 SCR 74. [Paras 46, 47] Nature of the rights of a transferee pendente lite discussed in light of Section 146, Order XXII Rule 10 and order I Rule
10 CPC:
Held: In light of Section 146, CPC which allows a litigant’s representatives to pursue the case, a transferee pendente lite though not necessarily arrayed as a part to the lis but still a person claiming under the defendant – Court then referred to Order I Rule 10 (Suit in name of wrong persons) and Order XXII Rule 10 (Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit) and held that both these provisions provided similar relief to a transferee pendente lite seeking to be brought on record in a pending suit – Court added that while dealing with any of these provisions, it is not material to adjudicate if the person sought to be impleaded as party in the suit is either necessary or proper party and it is enough he is claiming right under a party to the suit. On facts, Respondent No.1 and 2 bought the disputed property without the permission of the court and during the operation of an injunction order – As regards Respondent No.1 and 2’s claim of being bona-fide purchasers unaware of the fact that suit property was disputed and encumbered, they were permitted to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against Respondent No.7 who was their vendor. [Paras 9, 61]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Niti Richhariya, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by - Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.