SBCMA No.680/08
Shri Niwas Jhanwar & Anr. Vs. Hanuman Bux & Ors.
1
SBCMA No.680/08
Shri Niwas Jhanwar & Anr. Vs. Hanuman Bux & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : - 17.10.2008
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr.DD Chitlangi, for the appellants.
Mr. GK Bhaiya ]
Mr. Salil Trivedi ], for the respondents.
Mr. Kailash Khatri ]
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 19th
May, 2008 by which the the trial court impleaded applicant
Bhanwarlal as party defendant in the suit by allowing the
application filed under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order 1
Rule 10 CPC.
The dispute has chequred history as the plaintiff filed
the suit for cancellation of the lease deed dated 9.1.1985
and decree dated 2nd June, 1994 wherein during the
pendency of the suit lease deed was executed by defendant
Hanuman Bux in favour of the applicant on 10th Dec., 2007.
The applicant claimed that he is entitled to become party in
SBCMA No.680/08
Shri Niwas Jhanwar & Anr. Vs. Hanuman Bux & Ors.
2
the suit as there is collusion between Hanuman Bux
defendant and the plaintiff and they want to oust the
applicant Bhanwarlal. After considering facts in detail, the
trail court held that applicant deserves to be impleaded as
party- defendant.
According to learned counsel for the appellants, there
will be no end to the litigation in case any person who wants
to delay the proceedings is permitted to execute any
conveyance deed or lease deed to create third party right,
interest and by this, the suit proceedings will revert back to
the re-trial provided the newly added party allowed to take
its own pleas. According to learned counsel for the
appellants this Court in the case of Javid Ali & Anr Vs.
Kundan Mal & Ors reported in RLW 1998 (1) Raj 551 held
that subsequent transferee has a right to continue the
dispute or to contest the suit from the date on which he
submitted application. He cannot claim any right prior to
date of the filing of the suit. This court also held that if the
seller has given up his right to lead evidence in the suit,
subsequent purchaser had no right to lead evidence. It is
also submitted that the plaintiff’s suit is at the stage of
SBCMA No.680/08
Shri Niwas Jhanwar & Anr. Vs. Hanuman Bux & Ors.
3
evidence, therefore, newly added defendant cannot file the
written statement after the appellant’s plea against his
impleading as party in the suit is not accepted by this Court.
I considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the appellant and perused the facts of the case. It is true
that under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC a person becoming party
steps in the shoes of the vendor transferee and he is bound
by all the acts and actions of his vendor transferee. In this
case, there are allegations of collusion and fraud and those
facts have been taken note of by the trial court. The
applicant not only sought relief under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC
but also under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and it appears from the
facts of the case that there is direct conflict of interest
created subsequent by alleged lease deed dated 10th Dec.,
2007 as according to the plaintiff himself defendant
Hanuman Bux himself cancelled the lease deed dated 10th
Dec., 2007 and also gave consent for decreeing the suit of
the plaintiff. Therefore, substantially, the application of the
applicant Bhanwar Lal can be treated to be an application
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC also.
In view of the above reasons, the applicant Bhanwar
SBCMA No.680/08
Shri Niwas Jhanwar & Anr. Vs. Hanuman Bux & Ors.
4
Lal was rightly impleaded as party in the suit. He gets the
right to contest the suit also.
So far as contention of learned counsel for the
appellant that there will be no end of litigation is
concerned, that certainly requires serious consideration by
the court. Normally, if the parties enters into any
transaction with respect to movable property during the
pendency of the suit, it may not be bonafide transaction and
there is every possibility that such type of acts may be to
delay the trial of the suit. The court has ample power to
reject and dismiss the application of subsequent purchaser,
who purchased the property during trial of the suit or claims
that he got devolution interest by voluntary act of the
defendant in his favour, the court can certainly see over all
circumstances before impleading the party in the suit and
that can take full care of progress of the suit and when
there is allegation of malafide transaction during the
pendency of the suit, affecting right, interest in the property
or devolution of interest by one party or litigation in favour
of the party and may curb that tendancy.
In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is
SBCMA No.680/08
Shri Niwas Jhanwar & Anr. Vs. Hanuman Bux & Ors.
5
dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to decide the
suit expeditiously and it is expected to decide the suit within
a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order
by the trial court. Copy of this order be sent to the trial
court.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
c.p.goyal/-