Amitava Lala, J. - (1.)This appeal arises out of an order passed by the first appellate Court in remanding the matter to the Court of first instance for the purpose of hearing of the suit after impleading the subsequent transferee one Sri Pratap Kumar Maity as a party-respondent to the suit. It was further observed that no question of remand was necessary if Sri Pratap Kumar Maity had been a party to the suit.
(2.)Upon going through the order passed by the first appellate Court for remand, I find that such party was entered into an agreement with the vendor when the suit was pending. Therefore, principle of lis pendents will be applicable in the case but the same was not considered by the first appellate Court. The learned Judge of the first appellate Court erred in holding for remitting the matter to the trial Court.
(3.)Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended before this Court that on the basis of the judgment of the Privy Council reported in 33 CWN 1091 (Shib Chandra & Anr. Vs. Lachmi Narain & Ors.) , a purchaser can have no higher right than the vendor and bound by the decision of the Court where the litigation was pre-existing. He also cited another judgment reported in 1986 (supp) SCC 682 (Ram Lakhan Singh Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors.). In a short judgment, the Supreme Court again held that in view of Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a pendente he transferee would be bound by the result of the litigation. Similarly, in the judgment reported in (1996) 5 SCC 539 (Sarvinder Singh Vs. Dalip Singh & Ors.) , a similar question was decided. The Supreme Court observed that the alienation obviously would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens by operation of Sec. 52. Under such circumstances, the respondents cannot be considered to be either necessary or proper parties to the suit. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also dismissed.
;