RAM DHANI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one has appeared on behalf of respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) In my opinion, both the impugned orders are patently erroneous in law. There cannot be any dispute that a transferee during pendency of litigation is bound by the decree which is ultimately passed as provided by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act which is quoted below:

(3.) In the aforesaid Section there is no prohibition that the moment a suit in respect of some property is filed, the said property cannot be transferred. The fact that transferee pendente lite will be bound by the judgment in the suit is itself a sufficient ground for allowing the impleadment. If judgment is going to affect a person then he must be heard before passing of the said judgment. This is first principle of natural justice. To say that judgment is binding upon a person is completely different from saying that a person is not a necessary party in the suit. Moreover, under Order XII Rule 10, C.P.C., such transferee can very well be brought on record. Order XXII Rule 10, C.P.C. is quoted below: