Patna High Court
Ravi PoddarversusM/s Mitra Mandal Sangathan (Association of person)
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- S B P SINGH
Holding
The court held that the subsequent purchasers must be impleaded as parties to ensure effective adjudication and avoid multiplicity, but they step into the shoes of the vendor and cannot file a written statement conflicting with the vendor's pleadings.
Summary
The petitioner sought to implead twelve subsequent purchasers of the suit property in Title Suit No. 625 of 2019, invoking Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after the defendant had alienated part of the property during the suit. The trial court rejected the application, citing the plaintiff's delay, lack of evidence production, and potential prolongation of the litigation. The petitioner offered an undertaking to complete his evidence within six months. The High Court held that, to ensure complete adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the subsequent purchasers must be impleaded, but they would step into the shoes of the vendor and could not file a written statement conflicting with the vendor’s. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, the petitioner was directed to finish his evidence within six months, and the suit was to be concluded within nine months, with a warning that failure would permit the respondent to seek vacating the injunction.
Issues considered
- Whether the application for impleadment of subsequent purchasers under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC is maintainable despite the plaintiff's delay.
- Whether the doctrine of laches bars the impleadment of purchasers at this stage of the suit.
- Whether the subsequent purchasers, if impleaded, can be bound by the vendor's pleadings and are precluded from filing a conflicting written statement.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151
Subjects
- impleadment
- subsequent purchasers
- multiplicity of proceedings
- injunction
- laches
- civil procedure
- Order I Rule 10
- Section 151 CPC
- evidence timeline
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.440 of 2025
======================================================
Ravi Poddar Son of Shiv Bhagwan Poddar, Resident of Village - Jawahar Lal
Road, Police Station- Muzaffarpur Town, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. M/s Mitra Mandal Sangathan (Association of person) hereinafter called AOP
through its consulted President, Kali Das Singh @ Kali Das, Son of Munna
Lal Singh @ Muna Lal Singh, Resident of Y-22/05, Awas Vikas Kalyanpur,
Kanpur City, Uttar Pradesh, Permanent Address Village and Post Office-
Kashipur, Police Station- Kashipur Kanpur Dehat, District- Kanpur Dehat,
Uttar Pradesh, PIN Code - 209311.
2. Kali Das Singh @ Kali Das Son of Munna Lal Singh @ Muna Lal Singh
Resident of Y-22/05, Awas Vikas Kalyanpur, Kanpur City, Uttar Pradesh,
Permanent Address Village and Post Office Kashipur, Station Kashipur
Kanpur Dehat, District - Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh, PIN Code - 209311.
3. Ajit Kumar Son of Akhileshwar Prasad Resident of Marhowrah Khurd,
Police Station - Marhowrah, District -Saran, Chapra.
4. Miss Sandhya Daughter of Shri Ram Avadh Singh Resident of Village and
Post Office Rampur, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur (Uttar
Pradesh), PIN Code-233001.
5. Hemant Singh Son of Rama Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office -
Kashipur, Station Kashipur Kanpur Dehat, District - Kanpur Dehat, Uttar
Pradesh, PIN Code 209311.
6. Anil Katiyar Son of Shiv Ratan Katiyar Resident of Ashok Nagar, Belhaur,
Kanpur Nagar, Station - Kashipur Kanpur Dehat, District- Kanpur (Uttar
Pradesh), PIN Code-208001.
7. Raj Kumar Son of Kali Charan Singh Resident of Mohalla Narendra Nagar,
House No. 37/D, Unnao, Police Station- Unnao Dhana, District- Unnao
(Uttar Pradesh), PIN Code - 209831.
8. Santosh Kumar Son of Kali Charan Singh Resident of Plot No. 16, Ganga
Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Kanpur, Police Station- Shyam Nagar, District-
Kanpur Nagar (Uttar Pradesh).
9. M/s Mitra Mandal Sangathan, a Society registered under U.P. Co-operative
Societies Act, 1985 through its Chairman Kali Das Singh @ Kali Das, Son
of Munna Lal Singh @ Muna Lal Singh, Resident of Y-22/05, Awas Vikas
Kalyanpur, Police Station- Thana, Kanpur City, Uttar Pradesh.
10. Raj Kumar Agrawal Son of Late Shri Shankar Lal Agrwal, Resident of
Gunjan Trading Company, Office 123/360 (Up-Rolling Mill Compound),
Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar, Police Station - Kanpur Nagar, District - Kanpur
(Uttar Pradesh).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.440 of 2025(5) dt.06-01-2026
2/4
Mr. Varun Krishna Singh, Advocate
Mrs. Aastha Ananya
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr.Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 06-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The instant Civil Miscellaneous application has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated
07.02.2025 passed in Title Suit No. 625 of 2019 by the learned
Sub-Judge, Marhowrah at Saran whereby the petition filed by
the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment of subsequent
twelve purchasers of the suit property during the pendency of
the suit for their impleadment as party/defendant has been
rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Title
Suit No. 625 of 2019 has been instituted by the petitioner
against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit,
defendant no. 2 has alienated a portion of the suit property in
favour of twelve purchasers, whose names are mentioned in
Annexure-2. The petitioner seeks their impleadment in order to
avoid multiplicity of proceedings and, to that end, filed an
application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.440 of 2025(5) dt.06-01-2026
3/4
Procedure, which has been rejected by the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
suit has been pending since 2019 and the plaintiff has not
examined even a single witness till date. It is further submitted
that issues were framed on 13.01.2025, and therefore there is
gross laches on the part of the plaintiff. It is contended that
impleadment of the subsequent purchasers at this stage would
further prolong the litigation. Learned counsel further submits
that an order of injunction has already been granted in favour of
the plaintiff/petitioner and the plaintiff is deliberately delaying
the proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner undertakes to conclude his evidence
within a period of six months.
6. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf
of both the parties, it appears that for complete and effective
adjudication of the suit and to avoid multiplicity of the suit, the
subsequent purchasers are necessary parties, particularly in view
of the fact that the suit property has been transferred by the
defendant during the pendency of the suit without the
permission of the Court.
7. However, such purchasers shall be entitled only to
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.440 of 2025(5) dt.06-01-2026
4/4
step into the shoes of their vendor and shall not be permitted to
file any written statement in conflict with the written statement
filed by their vendor/defendants.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order
is set aside. In view of the undertaking given by the
plaintiff/petitioner, he is directed to conclude his evidence
within a period of six months. Thereafter, the respondent shall
also conclude his evidence, so that the suit may be disposed of
within a total period of nine months.
9. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to
conclude his evidence within the stipulated time, the respondent
shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application for vacating
the order of injunction.
10. Accordingly, the instant application stands
disposed of.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Ankit Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…