Topic
Madras High Court clarifies that Order I Rule 10(2) CPC permits only existing parties-not third-party pendente lite purchasers-to seek impleadment. Such purchasers must instead proceed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC to continue the suit, preserving their rights without distorting procedural roles.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a purchaser of disputed property during litigation must be impleaded as a defendant to ensure fair adjudication and prevent multiple proceedings. The court held that failure to implead such a purchaser under CPC Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 10 would defeat the purpose of lis pendens and lead to procedural injustice.
Madras High Court rules that a pendente lite purchaser of an entire suit property cannot claim equity over the whole property but is entitled only to the defendant's allotted share in final decree proceedings. The judgment clarifies the scope of rights for third-party purchasers during ongoing partition disputes, impacting property buyers and co-owners.