RAGHUNATH PRADHAN Vs. PRANAKRUSHNA PRADHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order of the Trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioner to add him as a party in a suit for partition.

(2.) The plaintiff (O.P. 1) had filed the title suit for partition in the year 1981. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner had purchased 46 decimals out of the suit lands from the widow of a deceased coparcener (Nityanand). The sale deed was executed by the widow for herself as well as the guardian of her minor sons (defendants 1 to 4). The application for addition was filed by the petitioner on 22-8-1984 and the suit was disposed of on 8-5-1985 on the basis of a compromise petition. Since the petitioners application had not been disposed of, he filed a petition on 17-7-1985 to consider his earlier application for addition. By the impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the application basically on the ground that since the suit had already been disposed of, the question of impleading the petitioner at a belated stage could not be taken into account. Earlier to that, he had observed that had the suit been not disposed of, the petitioner must have been impleaded as a party for a just decision of the case and proper adjudication of the matter.

(3.) It cannot be disputed that a transferee pendente lite is not a necessary or proper party inasmuch as he will be bound by the decree in the suit under Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, there are authorities taking the view that he may be added as a proper party in appropriate cases. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the application on the ground that on account of the disposal of the suit, the application could not be entertained. This proposition is strongly assailed on behalf of the petitioner and I find some force in the same.