NAEEMUDDIN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION, PRATAPGRAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Shafiq Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that by virtue of section 52 of T.P. Act, transferee pendente-lite is bound by the judgment which is ultimately passed in the case. This argument is 100% correct. However, on the basis of this very argument pendente-lite transferee deserves to be impleaded. If a judgment is binding upon a person it is necessary to hear him before passing the judgment. After transferring the property the transferor loses all the interest in the property. If transferee is not impleaded, the other side will have a cake walk as there would be no one to oppose his case.

(3.) Moreover by virtue of Order 22 Rule 10 of C.P.C. in case of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during pendency of the suit, the suit may by leave of the Court be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. Accordingly, in view of the said provision also the impleadment is perfectly permissible. The Supreme Court in Saila Bal Dassi Vs. Nirmala Sundri Dassi, 1958 AIR(SC) 394 has thoroughly discussed this aspect of the matter.