LAWS(P&H)-1986-7-138

SURINDER MOHAN Vs. NEW BANK OF INDIA

Decided On July 17, 1986
SURINDER MOHAN Appellant
V/S
NEW BANK OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India through the Ministry of Finance sold the house belonging to Nand Kishore to recover the income-tax dues. Jatinder Lal was the auction-purchaser and the sale was confirmed. Thereafter, Jatinder Lal, auction-purchaser, sold the property by four registered sale deeds to Surinder Mohan, Jatinder Mohan, Ashok Kumar and Bharat Kumar sons of Om Parkash.

(2.) The New Bank of India had given loan to Nand Kishore on the basis of the mortgage of the house which was put to auction by the Income Tax-Department. The aforesaid Bank filed a suit to challenge the auction on numerous grounds. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The Bank went up in appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The vendees from the auction-purchaser filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, for being added as defendant-respondents in the suit and appeal respectively. The Additional District Judge who heard the application, by order dated 12th February, 1986 dismissed the application after applying the rule of lis pendens as the applicants had purchased the property from the auction-purchaser during the pendency of the suit filed by the Bank. This appeal is by the vendees from the auction-purchaser.

(3.) After considering the matter, I am of the view that the appeal deserve to succeed. While the rule of lis pendens will apply in case the auction sale is set aside, Order 22 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code would equally apply to give right to the vendees from the auction purchaser to show that the auction sale should hold the field. After purchase the applications became entitled to take part in the proceedings this is what is envisaged by Order 22 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. This provision has been made specifically for the continuance of the proceedings by or against the person to or upon whom interest is created by assignment, creation or devolution during the pendency of the proceedings. Hence the lower appellate court erred in law in dismissing the application.