Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. This application was resisted by the plaintiffs contending that the petitioners are not a bonafide purchasers, hence they are not entitled to be impleaded in the suit. The Learned Trial Judge accepted the defence and dismissed the application.

4. I have heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and M/s.R.Shase, learned counsel appearing for R4. The other respondents, namely R1 to R3 though served, are not appearing either in person or through counsel duly instructed.

7. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioners, would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. and others, reported in 2013 5 SCC 397, wherein, similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court .

http://www.judis.nic.in

8. Though M/s.R.Shase, learned counsel for R4, would contend that the petitioners are not the bonafide purchasers, since the petitioners have come to Court within 2 weeks of their purchase seeking for impleadment, it should be presumed that they were aware of the pending litigation. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court militate against the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents. The presence of the petitioners is necessary at least to decide whether they are the bonafide purchasers or not. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court is not right in dismissing the application for impleadment.