Patna High Court
Sudhir Kumar Sah vs Manoj Kumar Sah on 17 July, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.593 of 2025
======================================================
1. Sudhir Kumar Sah Son of Late Narayan Sah, Resident of Uttar Maheshwari
Jogbani, Ward No. 5, Police Station - Jogbani, District - Araria.
2. Dropati Devi, daughter of Late Narayan Sah, Resident of Uttar Maheshwari
Jogbani, Ward No. 5, Police Station - Jogbani, District - Araria.
3. Kiran Devi, daughter of Late Narayan Sah, Resident of Uttar Maheshwari
Jogbani, Ward No. 5, Police Station - Jogbani, District - Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Manoj Kumar Sah Son of Late Jai Nandan Sah, resident of village- Dakshin
Maheshwari Ward No. 17, Police Station - Jogbani, District - Araria.
2. Manju Kumari, daughter of Late Jai Nandan Singh, resident of village-
Dakshin Maheshwari Ward No. 17, Police Station - Jogbani, District -
Araria.
3. Munni Devi @ Rekha Devi, daughter of Late Jai Nandan Singh, resident of
village- Dakshin Maheshwari Ward No. 17, Police Station - Jogbani, District
- Araria.
4. Munna Sah, Son of Pitambar Sah, Resident of Palasi, P.O. and Police Station
- Palasi, District - Araria.
5. Akhilesh Sah, Son of Pitambar Sah, Resident of Palasi, P.O. and Police
Station - Palasi, District - Araria.
6. Manju Devi, D/o Pitambar Sah, Resident of Palasi, P.O. and Police Station -
Palasi, District - Araria.
7. Leela Devi, W/o Late Kaushal Kumar Sah, Resident of Palasi, P.O. and
Police Station - Palasi, District - Araria.
8. Praveen Kumar Sah, Son of Late Kaushal Kumar Sah, Resident of Palasi,
P.O. and Police Station - Palasi, District - Araria.
9. Sarita Devi, daughter of Late Kaushal Kumar Sah, Resident of Palasi, P.O.
and Police Station - Palasi, District - Araria.
10. Lalita Devi, daughter of Late Kaushal Kumar Sah, Resident of Palasi, P.O.
and Police Station - Palasi, District - Araria.
11. Sanjay Kumar Sah, Son of Jamun Pd. Sah, Resident of village- Choura
Perwa, P.O. and Police Station - Forbesganj, District- Araria.
12. Ajay Kumar Sah, Son of Jamun Pd. Sah, Resident of village- Choura Perwa,
P.O. and Police Station - Forbesganj, District- Araria.
13. Sita Devi, daughter of Jamun Pd. Sah, Resident of village- Choura Perwa,
P.O. and Police Station - Forbesganj, District- Araria.
14. Rita Devi, daughter of Jamun Pd. Sah, Resident of village- Choura Perwa,
P.O. and Police Station - Forbesganj, District- Araria.
15. Niraj Kumar Sah, Son of Ram Pd. Sah, Resident of village- Jagir Pipra,
Police Station - Kursakanta, District- Araria.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.593 of 2025 dt.17-07-2025
2/7
16. Sarita Kumari, Daughter of Ram Pd. Sah, Resident of village- Jagir Pipra,
Police Station - Kursakanta, District- Araria.
17. Partima Devi, daughter of Ram Pd. Sah, Resident of village- Jagir Pipra,
Police Station - Kursakanta, District- Araria.
18. Uma Devi, daughter of Late Inder Chand Sah and W/o Soti Lal Sah, resident
of Village- Bhadeshwar, Police Station - Forbesganj, District- Araria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kshem Sharma, Advocate
For the Res. Nos. 1 to3 : Md. Waliur Rahman, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-07-2025
Record taken up on mentioning being made on behalf
of the petitioners.
02. Md. Waliur Rahman, suo motu, appears on behalf
of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 (respondents 1st set).
03. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as
well as learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and I
intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of
admission itself.
04. The present petition has been filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated
24.02.2025
passed by the learned Sub Judge, Forbesganj, Araria
in Title Suit No. 129 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the
learned trial court rejected the petition dated 24.01.2025 filed by
the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.593 of 2025 dt.17-07-2025
3/7
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for impleading
the lis pendens purchasers of original plaintiff, Uma Devi, as
party defendants in the suit.
05. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
one Most. Uma Devi wife of Jai Nandan Sah along with her son
and daughters filed Title Partition Suit No. 129 of 1994 for
partition of the suit property. Subsequently, the original plaintiff
Uma Devi and others abandoned the suit and the petitioners
became the plaintiffs after transposition. The respondents 1 st set
were the original plaintiffs. Now, some persons purchased the
suit property from Uma Devi and the transposed
plaintiffs/petitioners filed an application for impleadment of the
purchasers of Uma Devi as party defendants in the suit. But the
learned trial court rejected the application filed by the
plaintiffs/petitioners holding that Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act protects the right of the plaintiff. Learned counsel
further submits that the learned trial court proceeded in the
matter rejecting the impleadment on the ground that there would
be endless job to implead party and moreover, the interest of the
purchaser has to be protected by the seller who is already party
in the case. Thus, the learned trial court further held that
whatever would be the fate of the seller the same fate would be
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.593 of 2025 dt.17-07-2025
4/7
fall on the purchasers and dismissed the impleadment
application. Learned counsel further submits that it is an
erroneous order and the learned trial failed to exercise the
jurisdiction vested in it. When the original plaintiffs abandoned
the suit and they were transposed as defendants and these
original plaintiffs sold the property, if purchasers are not added
that would result in unnecessary complication in the matter. If
the purchasers are not allowed to be impleaded, there would be
multiplicity of the litigation relating to the same subject matter
of the land. The presence of the intervenor-purchasers are
necessary for effective disposal of the suit. If the purchasers are
added as party defendants, no prejudice would be caused to the
parties. Thus, the learned counsel submits that to avoid future
complication and multiplicity of the litigation, the application
filed by the petitioners for impleadment of purchasers ought to
have been allowed and hence, the impugned order be set aside
and the lis pendens purchasers be added as party in the suit.
06. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent 1st party vehemently contends that there is no
infirmity in the impugned order. Learned counsel further
submits that the vendors of the purchasers are already on record
and have been contesting the suit. Moreover, the properties have
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.593 of 2025 dt.17-07-2025
5/7
been transferred during pendency of the suit and lis pendens
purchasers are not supposed to join in the litigation when their
vendor is already on record. If the vendors were not contesting
the suit or they would not have impleaded as party, then only the
purchasers would have a right to get themselves impleaded or
the plaintiffs could have asked for their impleadment. But, this
is not the situation there. Thus, the learned counsel submits that
there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 24.02.2025
and the same be sustained.
07. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
08. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code reads as under: –
“10 (2). Court may strike out or add parties
– The Court may at any stage of the
proceedings, either upon or without the
application of either party, and on such
terms as may appear to the Court to be
just, order that the name of any party
improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, be struck out, and that the name,
of any person who ought to have been
joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or
whose presence before the Court may be
necessary in order to enable the Court
effectually and completely to adjudicate
upon and settle all the questions involved in
the suit, be added.”
09. Obviously, the aforesaid provision empowers the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.593 of 2025 dt.17-07-2025
6/7
court to add or strike out the name of any person at any stage of
the proceeding. It is entirely at the discretion of the court and
the said discretion is to be exercised by the court for effectually
and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions
involved in the suit.
10. From perusal of record, it is apparent that the
original plaintiffs abandoned their suit and even transferred the
properties to the purchasers during the pendency of the suit. So,
it is the original plaintiffs who have created this mess and if the
transposed plaintiffs who were earlier defendants want the
impleadment of such purchasers, the trial court ought to have
considered this prayer. In this regard, reliance could be placed in
the case of Amit Kumar Shaw and Another vs. Farida
Khatoon and Another reported in AIR 2005 SC 2209, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the applicability
of doctrine of lis pendens, held that even a transferee pendente
lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-
interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest and
he is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings
where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the
litigation, he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of
the case.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.593 of 2025 dt.17-07-2025
7/7
11. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm
Beawer (Raj.), reported in (2007) 10 SCC 82, has held that a
party having a semblance of interest in the suit property could
be impleaded as a party in the suit.
12. In the present case, it is the transposed plaintiffs
who are seeking the impleadment of the the purchasers of the
original plaintiffs and it appears reasonable that in order to
avoid future complications, such purchasers should be allowed
to be impleaded as party in order to safeguard their interest as
well as the interest of the petitioners.
13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of
the view that the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 suffers from
error of jurisdiction and the same is set aside. As a result, the
petition dated 24.01.2025 filed by the petitioners under Order 1
Rule 10(2) of the Code is allowed.
14. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 21.07.2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link