Patna High Court - Orders
Ramawati Devi vs Sant Prasad on 6 August, 2015
Author: V. Nath
Bench: V. Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Second Appeal No.218 of 2006
======================================================
Ramawati Devi .... .... Appellant
Versus
Sant Prasad .... .... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rewti Kant Raman
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dudhnath Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH
ORAL ORDER
10 06-08-2015Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the intervener-applicants as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
The Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 4950 of 2015) has been filed by the applicants claiming themselves to be purchasers from the plaintiff-appellant during pendency of the proceeding and with prayer to allow them to be impleaded as intervener- respondents in this appeal. It has been stated by the applicants that they apprehend that the parties to the appeal may compromise the matter to their prejudice and, as such, they in order to protect their interest want to be impleaded as party respondent.
Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the interest of the intervener-applicants is protected by the provisions of lispendens and further by the provisions contained in Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. It has been also submitted that there is no question of compromise with the plaintiff-appellant and therefore the apprehension expressed by the intervener - applicants is completely unfounded. It has also been submitted that as the intervener- applicants are purchasers during pendency of the proceeding, Patna High Court SA No.218 of 2006 (10) dt.06-08-2015 2 therefore, they are not entitled to be impleaded as party.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised no objection to the prayer of the intervener-applicants to be impleaded as party to this appeal.
Learned Counsel appearing for the intervener-applicants has supported the submissions made in the Interlocutory Application and has prayed that the same may be allowed.
After considering the facts of the case and the submissions on behalf of the parties, it is evident that the intervener-applicants have purchased part of the suit property during pendency of the proceeding. The law is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai Prakash University, (2001) 6 SCC 534 that if pendenti lite purchaser comes before the Court seeking their addition as party in order to protect their interest the same may be allowed. In the facts of the present case, this Court does not find that addition of the intervener-applicants as party respondent in this appeal shall in any manner prejudice the case of the sole respondent as the intervener-applicants cannot legally travel beyond the pleadings of the plaintiff and the evidence led by the parties.
Mr. Mahesh Prasad No. 2, learned Counsel appearing for the intervener-applicants has also submitted that the intervener- applicants shall not make prayer for filing any pleading or leading any evidence. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no impediment in impleading the intervener-applicants as intervener-respondents in this appeal. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 4950 of Patna High Court SA No.218 of 2006 (10) dt.06-08-2015 3 2015) is allowed. The applicants mentioned therein are added as intervener-respondents.
(V. Nath, J.) Snkumar/-
U