KRISHNA SAINI Vs. CHAMELI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLOWED, subject to all just exceptions. FAO(OS) No.176/2011 and CM No.6542/2011

(2.) THIS Appeal impugns the Order dated 14.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge wherein the Prayers of impleadment of the Appellant/Applicant in Suit No.2120/1998 was declined.

(3.) MR. Nalin Tripathi, learned counsel for the Appellant, has relied upon various precedents of the Supreme Court to argue that a subsequent purchaser, having a substantial interest in the subject matter of the Suit, is a necessary party and may be impleaded in the Suit. All the three precedents, viz. Amit Kumar Shaw ?vs- Farida Khatoon, (2005) 11 SCC 403, Dhanalakshmi ?vs- P. Mohan, (2007) 10 SCC 719 and Savitri Devi ?vs- District Judge, (1999) 2 SCC 577 have been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in S.N. Arora ?vs- Brokers and Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 2010(118) DRJ 631 of which one of us (Vikramajit Sen, J.) was a member concluding that a subsequent purchaser is not a necessary party in a suit between the two parties, the subsequent purchaser not being the party to the agreement between the litigating parties. The Division Bench arrived at this conclusion after taking into consideration various Supreme Court judgments (including those relied upon before us) and the doctrines of lis pendens and dominus litus. It was also concluded that the course open for a subsequent purchaser to safeguard his interest is to file a substantial independent suit. As we have noted earlier, this course of action has been availed of by the Appellant/Applicant by means of her independent Suit No.220/2009 which has been ordered to be tagged with the present partition Suit in which impleadment is sought. Therefore, the Appellant's interests will be adequately administered in that Suit.