NILA DEI Vs. NIRANJAN DAS AND 6 ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against an order rejecting an application under Order 22, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the Appellant as a Defendant in the suit.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case necessary for the present purpose are that Niranjan Das, Respondent No. 1 herein, filed T.S. No. 112 of 1965 seeking declaration of title to certain properties against Respondent No. 2 and others. Respondent No. 2 is the Defendant No. 1 in the aforesaid suit. During the pendency of the said suit, Appellant purchased one item of property which constituted the subject -matter of suit from Defendant No. 1. After purchase, however, Appellant did not apply to be impleaded as a Defendant. The trial of the suit commenced on 21 -7 -1969 and continued up to 2.8.1969. On 4 -8 -1969, Appellant for the first time filed an application under Order 22, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure to implead him as a party alleging that her vendor -Defendant No. 1 during his examination in Court made statements detrimental to her interest. She therefore wanted to be impleaded as a Defendant to safeguard her interest. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge passed the impugned order to the effect that Appellant's application shall stand rejected, if she failed to furnish an undertaking to abide by the evidence on record without claiming any right to give fresh evidence by 4.30 P.M. Appellant failed to comply with the condition, and as such, her application for being impleaded as a party stood rejected. In this case, it is not disputed that Appellant is a transferee pendente lite from Defendant No. 1 tinder a sale deed dated 23 -12 -1967. The trial of the suit commenced on 21 -7 -1969 and was almost at the closing stage when the present application was filed by Appellant on 4.8 -1969. It cannot be denied that both the Appellant and her husband knew about the pendency of the suit and the subsequent progress of the trial.

(3.) REGARDING the rights of pendente lite transferee, the principle of law was explained in the decision reported in Pyli v. Varghese, A.I.R. 1956 T.C. 147, as follows: