MUNAWAR RANA AND PREMWATI Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Application in hand is the application filed by Smt. Munawar Rana wife of Shamsher Rana resident of Nai Basti chakrauta Road Saharanpur encapsulating the prayer for recall of judgment delivered on 3-11-2004 by this Court attended with further prayer to implead the applicant in the array of parties.

(2.) SECOND appeal arising out of O. S. No. 268 of 1983 Premwati v. Jagdish, was decided by this Court on merits on 3rd November 2003 as stated supra. The applicant claims herself transferee from defendant from whom she purchased property in suit through registered sale deed dated 22-11-1999 during pendency of second appeal.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Raj Kumar v. Sadari Lal and Ors. , 2004 (2) JCLR 121 (SC) : JT 2004 (2) SC 196. The quintessence of what has been laid down in this decision is that the doctrine of lis pendens has been statutorily incorporated under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and a defendant cannot, by alienating the property during pendency of litigation, venture into depriving the successful plaintiff of the fruits of decree. The transfer pendente lite is treated in the eye as a representative-in-interest of judgment debtor and held bound by decree passed against judgment debtor though neither the defendant had chosen to bring the transferee on record by apprising his opponent and the Court of the transfer made by him nor the transferee has chosen to come on record by taking recourse to Order XXII, Rule 10 of the C. P. C. The question which the Apex Court was seized of was that in case transfer took place during pendency of the suit, but the decree passed ex parte in the suit is sought to be set aside not by the defendant on record but by a person who did not come or was not brought on record promptly. The Apex Court relied upon Section 146 of the C. P. C. In a case where ex parte decree was passed against defendant, an application was filed to set aside the ex parte decree by transferee, question was whether such transferee has locus standi to file application for recall of ex parte decree.