Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. NANAK BUILDERS & INVESTORS P. LTD. & ORS.

SCR Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 74
Year/Volume: 2013/ Volume 2
Date of Judgment: 21 February 2013
Petitioner: THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD.
Disposal Nature: Appeal Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2013 INSC 118
Judgment Delivered by: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal,Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur
Respondent: NANAK BUILDERS & INVESTORS P. LTD. & ORS.
Case Type: CIVIL APPEAL /1518/2013
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 0. 1, r.10, 0.22, r.10 - Suit for specific performance of contract - During pendency of the suit defendant transferring the property - Application by appellant-transferee for impleadment as defendant - HELD: Appellant entered into a clandestine transaction with the defendants and got the property transferred in its favour - Therefore, the appellant cannot be held to be a bonafide purchaser, without notice - It is true that the application which the appellant made was only under O. I r.10 CPC but the enabling provision of 0.22, r. 10 CPC could always be invoked if the fact situation so E demanded - In the facts and circumstances of the case and also for the ends of justice, the appellant is to be added as party-defendant in the suit -Specific Relief Act, 1963- s. 19 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s.52 - Doctrine of lis pendens.
The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed a suit on 1.11.1991 against the defendants-respondents for specific performance of the agreement dated 29.5.1986, whereunder the defendants had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff-respondent no. 1. Appearance was put on behalf of the defendants and on the basis of the statement made on their behalf court on 4.11.1991 passed an interim order not to alienate the suit property. However, between 31.1.2001 and 3.4.2001 five sale deeds were executed by the defendants in favour of the appellant. On the basis of these sale deeds the appellant A moved an application under 0.1, r.10. CPC, for impleadment as defendant in the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1. The Single Judge of the High Court rejected the application. The FAO filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. In the instant appeal, the question for consideration before the Court was: "whether the appellant who is the transferee pendente lite having notice and knowledge about the pendency of the suit for specific performance and order of injunction can be impleaded as party under Order 1 Rule 10 on the basis of sale deeds executed in its favour by the defendants".

2. Case referred
3. Act
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
4. Keyword
  • Code of Civil Procedure
5. Equivalent citation
    Citation(s) 2013 (5) SCC 397 = 2013 (5) Suppl. SCC 397 = 2013 (3) JT 289 = 2013 (3) Suppl. JT 289 = 2013 (3) SCALE 26