PHILOMINA MARY Vs. M.I. RAFIDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the revision petitioner. He filed the said suit against the first respondent herein for permanent injunction restraining him from in any way interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(2.) PENDING suit, the plaintiff has sold the suit property to the second respondent herein. Consequently, she along with the second respondent herein filed an interim application in I.A.No. 1 of 2014 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC seeking for impleading the second respondent/purchaser as second plaintiff in the said suit. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the property was sold during the pendency of the suit and therefore, such transaction was hit by lis pendens. Thus, by observing so, the Trial Court found that neither the plaintiff nor the subsequent purchaser is entitled to maintain the present application.

(3.) MR .N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this case is no more res integra, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in : 2014 -3 -L.W.769, V.L.Dhandapani v. Revathy Ramachandran and others, wherein it has been held that the transferee pendente lite can be impleaded as party to the suit. The learned counsel also invited this Court's attention to the facts of the said case before the Division Bench to contend that the suit therein was also for permanent injunction, where the subsequent purchaser from the plaintiff sought to be impleaded was originally rejected and the Division Bench of this Court by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in : 2013 -2 -L.W.748 (SC), Thomsom Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and others held that transferee pendente lite can be impleaded as party to the suit. In paragraph 15 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, it 4 has been held as follows: