R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE applicant, M/s. Suncity Projects Private Limited, has filed this application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., for being impleaded as party respondent in the present appeal.
(2.) IT is the case of the applicant that the plaintiff had filed a civil suit for partition of the property against the defendants. However, vide judgment dated 20 -5 -2003, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial court. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this first appeal was filed by the appellant plaintiff in the year 2003 itself. From 2003 till 2008, this Court did not grant any stay in favour of the appellant. During this period, the defendant No. 1, Ranveer Singh, sold part of the property to Ms/. Harihar Buildtech Private Limited. The applicant, M/s. Suncity Projects Private Limited, is a sister concern of M/s. Harihar Buildtech Private Limited. Since part of the property was bought by M/s. Harihar Buildtech Private Limited, it transferred the land to the applicant for developing a township. It was at the instance of the applicant that the nature of the land was changed from agricultural to residential and the proceeding under Section 90B of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act was carried out by the Jaipur Development Authority ('JDA' for short). Subsequently, the applicant has sold the plots and houses to different persons. However, when the applicant and the plot holders requested the JDA to issue pattas in their favour, they were informed that because of stay granted by this Court on 10 -4 -2008 and 8 -5 -2008, which was confirmed on 29 -5 -2008, the JDA could not issue patta in their favour. Thus, according to applicant, recently they have come to know that litigation was pending between the appellant and defendant and this Court has granted stay in favour of the appellant in the year 2008. When M/s. Harihar Buildtech Private Limited had purchased the property from defendant No. 1, they were unaware of the fact that the litigation was pending between the appellant and defendant No. 1. As such M/s. Harihar Buildtech Private Limited was a bonafide purchaser. Since M/s. Harihar Buildtech (P) Ltd. has transferred the land to Suncity Project Pvt. Ltd, the applicant has stepped into the shoes of M/s. Harihar Buildtech (P) Ltd. Hence this application for impleadment as party respondent has been filed by the applicant. Mr. Vinay Mathur, the learned Counsel for the applicant, has contended that since the applicant has bought part of the property in dispute, since the judgment passed by this Court would adversely affect the interest of the applicant, therefore, the applicant should be impleaded as party respondent. He has further contended that even during the proceeding under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, a proceeding initiated at the instance of the applicant, there was no information that the property in dispute was subject matter of any litigation. Moreover, when the property was bought by M/s. Harihar Buildtech Private Limited, and when it was transferred to the applicant, during that period there was no stay in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, the stay was granted on 10 -4 -2008 and 8 -5 - 2008, which was confirmed on 29 -5 -2008. Thus, during the intervening period from 2003 till 10 -4 -2008, there was no stay in favour of the appellant. Hence, the property was bought in a bona fide manner. Once the applicant has learnt that there is stay order in favour of the appellant, once the applicant has realised that its interest would adversely be affected by any order passed by this Court, the applicant deserved to be impleaded as party respondent.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. D.D. Patodia, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that according to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendant could not transfer the property to the applicant, therefore, the applicant is not a necessary party. Hence, he cannot be impleaded as party. Moreover, at best the applicant is an assignee. Therefore, instead of filing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., it should have filed the application under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. Thus, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., deserves to be dismissed. Lastly, even if the applicant is apprehending that it can be affected by the judgment passed by this Court, at best he can be substituted in place of respondent No. 1.;