- (1.) Heard Shri Shafiq Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner. Opposite party no. 3 Kashi Nath sold the entire agricultural property in dispute in favour of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 namely Zaibunnisa and Qamrunnisa. In the litigation which was going on before the Consolidation Authorities in between the petitioner and respondent no. 3, in respect of the agricultural property in dispute, the pendente-lite purchasers respondent no. 6 and 7, applied for their impleadment. The application was allowed by the consolidation Officer Sadar II, Pratapgarh through order dated 13.04.2012 passed in case No. 591/414 of 2011-12. Against the said order petitioner filed Revision No. 1775/1675 of 2012-13 Naimuddin Vs. Jaibunnisha and others. Deputy Director of Consolidation Pratapgarh dismissed the Revision on 27.08.2013 hence this writ petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that by virtue of section 52 of T.P. Act, transferee pendente-lite is bound by the judgment which is ultimately passed in the case. This argument is 100% correct. However, on the basis of this very argument pendente-lite transferee deserves to be impleaded. If a judgment is binding upon a person it is necessary to hear him before passing the judgment. After transferring the property the transferor loses all the interest in the property. If transferee is not impleaded, the other side will have a cake walk as there would be no one to oppose his case.
(3.) Moreover by virtue of Order 22 Rule 10 of C.P.C. in case of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during pendency of the suit, the suit may by leave of the Court be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. Accordingly, in view of the said provision also the impleadment is perfectly permissible. The Supreme Court in Saila Bal Dassi Vs. Nirmala Sundri Dassi, 1958 AIR(SC) 394 has thoroughly discussed this aspect of the matter.;