In Lal Babu Giri & Ors. vs. Matuki Giri @ Dharam Nath Giri & Ors. (2026), Justice S. B. Pd. Singh delivered a 5-page long judgement dated April 9, 2026, wherein he concluded that considering the facts of the case "it seems essential that intervenor be impleaded in the appeal to protect his interest with respect to his purchased property but he will be confined to the pleadings and evidence of the vendor only during the course of his argument. 7. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed." The judgement by Justice Singh was uploaded on April 17, 2026. The judgment was reserved on March 13, 2026.
This civil miscellaneous application was filed for setting aside the order dated May 15, 2019 passed in T.A. No. 35 pf 2000 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Gopalganj whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. for adding the petitioner as respondent in the instant title appeal, was rejected without assigning any reason. The case was filed in the High Court on August 29, 2019 and registered on December 9, 2019.
Respondent-Surendra Tiwari @ Lallan Tiwari had filed Title Suit No. 473 of 1993 against Matuki Giri @ Dharam Nath Giri which was decreed by the Court of Sub-Judge Gopalganj. Against the judgment and decree, the defendant/appellant Matku Giri preferred an appeal i.e. Title Appeal No. 35 of 2000. During the pendency of this appeal petitioner/proposed intervenor purchased the same suit land from the respondent-Surendra Tiwari @ Lallan Tiwari on May 7, 2015, then he filed a petition for his impleadment in the appeal which was rejected by the impugned order that was under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous application.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that petitioner was a bona fide purchaser of the suit plot and without the knowledge of this litigation and he had apprehension that respondent namely, Surendra Tiwari @ Lallan Tiwari may leave the pairwi and may gained over by the appellant in future. Therefore, in order to protect his right and interest, it was essential for him to be impleaded in the appeal.
The counsel for the petitioner relied on Supreme Court's the case of Yogesh Goyanka vs. Govind and Ors. reported in (2024) 7 Supreme Court Cases 524 in which it held: “20. In the particular facts and circumstances of this case, Mr. Sundaram has been able to satisfy this Court on the possibility of collusion between the Respondents. It is a fact that the Plaintiffs and Defendants are relatives. More importantly, Plaintiffs approached the court in the Underlying Suit after a substantial delay of 11 years whereas admittedly, the revenue records were mutated to reflect the name of Respondent No. 21 since 2007. It is also curious that the claim of non-payment of consideration by the Appellant was made for the first time before this Court. 21. On the other hand, the Appellant has a registered sale deed in his favor and has therefore seemingly acquired an interest in the Subject Land. Whether or not the consideration was paid, is a disputed question of fact that shall be determined by the Trial Court. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, including the fact that the trial has not progressed significantly, the Appellant herein, in the interest of justice, is entitled to impleadment in the Underlying Suit in order to protect his interests, if any, in the Subject Land. 22. In light of the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed. The Impugned Order and the order of the ADJ dated 10.10.2019 are set aside and the Appellant is directed to be added as a party defendant in the Underlying Suit.”
The counsel for the respondent/appellant submitted that petitioner had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the appeal which was hit by the rule of lis pendens and petitioner had derived his right title from the vendor-Surendra Tiwari @ Lallan Tiwari who was still contesting the appeal.
The provision of order XXII Rule 10 of C.P.C. reads: “10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit.–(1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a 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. (2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit of sub-rule (1).”
Justice Singh observed that in the light of these facts it is essential that intervenor be impleaded in the appeal to protect his interest with respect to his purchased property but he will be confined to the pleadings and evidence of the vendor only during the course of his argument.
Earlier, Justice Arun Kumar Jha had stayed the judicial proceeding of Title Appeal No. 35 of 2000 pending before the court of 1st Additional District Judge, Gopalganj by his 2-page long order dated April 30, 2024 in Bindeshwari Giri (now deceased) vs. Matuki Giri @ Dharam Nath Giri & Anr. (2024) till the next date hearing. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has purchased the land after the title appeal was dismissed in default though it was subsequently restored. The appellate court had rejected the application on the ground of lis pendens and it was also the fact that petitioner was not the party in the original suit or in the appeal but there was no lis pendens. This was the second order in the case which was filed in August 2019.
Notably, in subsequent order, the respondent no.2, namely Surendra Tiwari @ Lallan Tiwari, who died on September 19, 2020, during the pendency of this petition, from the records, he was substituted with his legal heirs/representatives. The petitioner was permitted to take necessary steps for substituted service of notice through paper publication in two local daily newspapers, namely ‘Times of India’ and ‘Hindustan’, having its circulation in the area of residence of the respondents within four weeks. After publication, the petitioner will file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record copies of newspaper cuttings.
Justice Jha's order dated July 3, 2025 heard the interlocutory application filed on behalf of the petitioner for substitution of heirs/legal representatives of sole petitioner, Bindeshwari Giri. The counsel appearing on behalf of heirs/legal representatives submits that the sole petitioner died on May 13, 2025 leaving behind his heirs/legal representatives. The interlocutory application as well as submission made on behalf of heirs/legal representatives of the sole petitioner was allowed. The order reads:"4. Let the name of sole petitioner be deleted from the record and be substituted with his heirs/legal representatives..."
The first order was passed by Justice Vikash Jain December 16, 2019, wherein none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was called.
Dr. Gopal Krishna, a practicing advocate pointed out that Supreme Court's decision in Razia Begum vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, reported in AIR 1958 SC 886 wherein, it held that in a suit relating to property in order that a third party may be impleaded, he/she should have a direct or legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation as distinguished from a commercial interest. Legal interest so interpreted means that the result of the suit would affect the third party legally. In a decision of the Federal Court in United Provinces vs. Mt. Atiqu Begum and others reported in AIR 1941 FC 16 wherein, it was held that a person would be a necessary party if a person ought to have been joined, that is to say, in whose absence no effective decree can be passed at all. The person would be a proper party to be impleaded if his/her presence is necessary for an effectual or complete adjudication and in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the intervener petitioner is necessary party because no effective decree can be passed at all as the intervener petitioner is having right, title and possession over the suit land. The Supreme Court in P.C. Varghese vs. Devaki Amma Balambika Devi and others reported in (2005) 8 SCC 486 stressed the point that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the plaintiff is allowed to claim a decree for possession and/or partition in a suit for specific performance. The High Court in Smt.Baby Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2024 (2) BLJ 763 had
allowed the application of the petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10
(2) read with Section 151 of the Code and in the case, the petitioner
was only claiming her right, title and interest over a portion of the
suit land.
No comments:
Post a Comment