The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that a purchaser who acquires property during the pendency of a civil suit must be impleaded as a defendant to safeguard his legal interest and prevent multiplicity of litigation. This ruling clarifies the interplay between the doctrine of lis pendens and the procedural mechanisms under the Code of Civil Procedure to ensure substantive justice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiffs, respondents No. 1 to 3, filed Civil Suit No. 156-A of 2015 before the 15th District Judge, Gwalior, seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction against respondents No. 4 and 5 concerning House No. 1332, situated at Dhobhi Chowk, Teli ki Bazariya, Naya Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior. Defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 4, Jitendra) contested the plaintiffs' claim, asserting ownership of the property based on a registered sale deed.
Key Facts
- The disputed property is located at House No. 1332, Dhobhi Chowk, Gwalior
- Defendant No. 4 (Jitendra) claimed ownership through a registered sale deed prior to the suit
- During the pendency of the suit, Jitendra sold the property to the petitioner, Smt. Neetu Sharma, via a registered sale deed dated 04.01.2022
- The petitioner acquired all rights, title, and interest in the property as of 04.01.2022
- The petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment as a defendant
Procedural History
- 2015: Civil Suit No. 156-A of 2015 instituted by plaintiffs against respondents No. 4 and 5
- 04.01.2022: Respondent No. 4 executed a registered sale deed in favor of the petitioner
- 21.07.2022: Trial court rejected the petitioner’s application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- 08.04.2026: Petitioner filed Misc. Petition No. 3323 of 2022 under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contended that as a pendente lite purchaser with a registered title, her presence was necessary for adjudication of the suit. She argued that the original defendant, having divested his interest, may no longer defend the suit with diligence, risking prejudice to her rights.
The respondents, including the original defendant, did not appear or file any written submissions.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the trial court’s order dated 21.07.2022 rejecting her impleadment application, and directed the trial court to implead her as a defendant in Civil Suit No. 156-A of 2015.
The Legal Issue
Can a purchaser who acquires property during the pendency of a civil suit be impleaded as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, despite the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC permits the impleadment of any person whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication. He relied on Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, which provides for substitution of parties upon transfer of interest during litigation. He contended that the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not extinguish the right of a pendente lite purchaser to be heard in the suit. He cited the unreported judgment in Sharad Yadav v. Pradeep Prajapati (21.08.2025) and the Supreme Court decisions in Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors P. Ltd. and Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon to establish that impleadment is not only permissible but necessary to prevent injustice and multiplicity of proceedings.
For the Respondent
No appearance or submissions were made by respondents No. 1 to 3 or respondent No. 4, despite service.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between the doctrine of lis pendens and the procedural provisions of the CPC. It noted that while Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act renders any transfer during litigation subject to the outcome of the suit, it does not operate as a bar to impleadment. The Court emphasized that the purpose of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is to ensure that all persons with a real interest in the subject matter are before the court.
"The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs. Nanak Builders and Investors P. Ltd. reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397 held that a matching of Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC makes it clear that a purchaser pendente lite can be impleaded as a party with the leave of the Court."
The Court further relied on Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon to observe that an alienee pendente lite is bound by the final decree, and therefore, excluding him from the proceedings risks collusion between the original parties and undermines the fairness of adjudication. The trial court’s reasoning that the petitioner’s presence was unnecessary was found to be legally untenable, as the original defendant, having sold his interest, may no longer have incentive to contest the suit vigorously.
The Court held that the petitioner’s substantive interest in the property, evidenced by a registered sale deed, conferred upon her a right to be heard. Denying impleadment would result in a potential injustice and force her to initiate a separate suit, violating the principle of judicial economy.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 21.07.2022 rejecting the petitioner’s application for impleadment was set aside. The trial court was directed to implead the petitioner, Smt. Neetu Sharma, as a defendant in Civil Suit No. 156-A of 2015 and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Impleadment Is Mandatory for Pendente Lite Purchasers
- Practitioners must file applications under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC immediately upon acquiring property during litigation
- A registered sale deed is sufficient to establish standing for impleadment
- Courts cannot reject such applications on grounds of lis pendens alone
Avoiding Multiplicity of Litigation Is a Core Objective
- Failure to implead a pendente lite purchaser may lead to parallel proceedings and inconsistent decrees
- The doctrine of lis pendens protects the suit’s outcome, not the exclusion of the transferee
- Courts must prioritize procedural fairness over technical objections
Judicial Economy Requires Proactive Joinder
- The court’s duty under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is to ensure all interested parties are heard
- The original defendant’s lack of interest post-sale does not absolve the court of its obligation to implead
- Delay in filing impleadment applications may be excused if the purchaser acted promptly upon acquiring title
