1 2025:CGHC:32426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 786 of 2024 1 - Parasram S/o Lt Sukhaiya Prasad Aged About 60 Years Indra Nagar Kumhar Para Tah. Dist - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Uma Shankar S/o Lt. Sukhaiya Prasad Aged About 51 Years Indra Nagar Kumhar Para Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Leela Bai Prajapati W/o Puran Prajapati Aged About 45 Years House No 245 Ward No. 11 Gandhi Chowk Gram Balauda Tah Balauda Dist - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 4 - Koushilya Kumhar W/o Gopal Prasad Kumhar Aged About 46 Years Gram Bahanidih Ward No. 01 Bamhani Barar Tah. Akaltara Dist. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 5 - Santoshi Bai W/o Lt. Chandra Shekhar Aged About 40 Years Gopalpur, Tah. Pali Dist Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - Ram Avtar And Others S/o Ramlal Kumhar Aged About 46 Years Ward No 18 Patera Tola New Rajnagar Bhalmudhi - PO Rajnagar Kaltri Dist - Anuppur M.P. 2 - Dukhani Bai Chakradhari W/o Shankar Lal Prajapati Aged About 70 Years Ward No 4 Dadipara Sarbahra Dist - Gaurela Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh 3 - Navmi Bai Prajapati W/o Chippa Prajapati Aged About 69 Years Ward No 2 Panchvati Mohalla Budhar Lalpur Dist - Shahdol M.P. 4 - Agni Bai And Others W/o Lt. Narmada Prasad Kumhar Aged About 70 Years Indira Nagar Kumhar Para Raigarh Tah And Dist - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Santoshi Bai (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 25-02-2025. 6 - Smt. Deepika Prajapati W/o Shri Chhatrapal Prajapati Aged About 23 Years Gopalpur, Tah. Pali Dist - Korba Chhattisgarh 7 - Priyanka D/o Lt. Chandra Shekhar Aged About 21 Years Indra Nagar Kumhar Para, Raigarh Tah. Dist - Raigarh Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.21 15:16:37 +0530 2 8 - Minor Poonam Through Vali Mata Santoshi Bai D/o Lt. Chandra Shekhar Aged About 14 Years Vill. Indra Nagar Kumharpara Raigarh Tah. Dist. Raigarh Chhattisgarh 9 - Minor Lubhawan Through Vali Mata Santoshi Bai D/o Lt. Chandra Shekhar Aged About 12 Years Vill. Indra Nagar Kumharpara Raigarh Tah. Dist. Raigarh Chhattisgarh 10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector Dist - Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned As S/o) 11 - M/s Pancham Developers Goga Rice Mill Compound, Jute Mill Road Raigarh Chhattisgarh Though Partner - 11 - (A) Dinesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Mahabir Prasad Agrawal Aged About 66 Years Through Partner M/s Pancham Devlopers, Goga Rice Mill Compound, Jute Mill Road Raigarh Chhattisgarh 11. - (B) Jagdish Prasad Agrawal S/o Shri Hariram Agrawal Aged About 69 Years Through Partner M/s Pancham Devlopers, Goga Rice Mill Compound, Jute Mill Road Raigarh Chhattisgarh 11.- (C) Apic Alloy Steel Pvt Ltd Through Director Ram Avatar Agrawal Aged About 77 Years Through Partner M/s Pancham Devlopers, Goga Rice Mill Compound, Jute Mill Road Raigarh Chhattisgarh 11. - (D) Deepak Agrawal S/o Shri Mohan Agrawal Aged About 40 Years Through Partner M/s Pancham Devlopers, Goga Rice Mill Compound, Jute Mill Road Raigarh Chhattisgarh 11.- (E) Amit Agrawal S/o Late Hanuman Prasad Agrawal Aged About 44 Years Through Partner M/s Pancham Devlopers, Goga Rice Mill Compound, Jute Mill Road Raigarh Chhattisgarh 11. - (F) Ankit Agrawal S/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 32 Years Through Partner M/s Pancham Devlopers, Goga Rice Mill Compound, Jute Mill Road Raigarh Chhattisgarh 11. - (G) Gaurav Agrawal S/o Shri Rajendra Agrawal Aged About 37 Years Through Partner M/s Pancham Devlopers, Goga Rice Mill Compound, Jute Mill Road Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners/defendants No. 2 to 6 : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3/ Plaintiffs For Respondent No. 4 For Respondents No. 11.(A) to 11.(G) For Respondent No. 10/State : : : : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate 3 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11/07/2025 1. Petitioners/defendants No. 2 to 6 have challenged the order passed by the learned 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 46A/2023 dated 16.07.2024, whereby an application moved by defendants No. 11. (A) to 11.(G) under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was allowed. 2. Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants No. 2 to 6, would argue that a suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 3 for declaration of title, partition and possession pertaining to the suit property described in Schedule-A. He would further submit that during the pendency of the civil suit, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement to sell with defendants No. 11(A) to 11(G) on 15.11.2006 for a consideration of Rs 7,59,000/- and Rs 3,00,000/- was paid in advance. Mr. Amit Sharma would further argue that though the suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 03.02.2024, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was moved by defendants No. 11(A) to 11(G) on 19.02.2024. He would contend that defendants No. 2 to 6 have filed a counterclaim claiming therein the right over the property of Dukhani Bai and Navmi Bai on the basis of the principle of adverse possession. He would also submit that the application moved by defendants No. 11(A) to 11(G) under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was allowed by the trial Court, whereas they were neither a necessary party nor a proper party. He would further contend that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition, possession and declaration of title, and thus, the learned Trial Court committed an error of law while allowing the 4 application moved by defendants No. 11(A) to 11(G) under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Mr. Amit Sharma would further state that though there was an oral partition between the parties, the same has been denied by the plaintiffs. Defendants No. 2 to 6 have also denied such a partition, and before the partition of the suit property, no order can be passed in favour of the proposed defendants No. 11(A) to 11(G) with regard to the specific performance of the contract. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Roop Naik, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 3, would submit that no objection was raised by the plaintiffs to the application moved by defendants No. 11(A) to 11(G) under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Mr. Roop Naik admits the fact that an agreement to sell has been executed between the plaintiffs and defendants No. 11(A) to 11(G). He would further contend that the trial Court rightly allowed the application moved by them and the rejection of the said application would invite a multiplicity of cases. He would also submit that defendants No. 2 to 6 in their written statement have claimed the right over the suit property on the principle of adverse possession. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for defendants No. 11(A) to 11(G) would argue that earlier a civil suit was filed by the proposed defendants and a compromise decree was passed in the National Lok Adalat on 09.12.2017 pursuant to an agreement entered into between plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and the proposed defendants No. 11(A) to 11(G) on 04.10.2017. He would further submit that with respect to the subject property belonging to Dukhani Bai and Navmi 5 Bai, defendants No. 2 to 6 have claimed the right on the principle of adverse possession. 5. Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate, would support the order passed by the courts below. 6. Mr. Rajat Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, would oppose. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. In the present case, defendants No. 11(A) to 11(G) moved an application in the pending civil suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC on the basis of an agreement to sell entered into between plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 & defendants No. 11(A) to 11(G) on 04.10.2017. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the declaration of title, possession and for confirmation of partition. Defendants No. 2 to 6 denied the fact that there was any partition between the parties. Defendants No. 2 to 6 filed a counterclaim claiming therein confirmation of the revenue entries and also claimed the right over. 9. The application moved by defendants No. 11(A) and 11(G) under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been allowed by the learned Trial Court. The plaintiffs never objected to the said application. Defendants No. 2 to 6 have filed this petition assailing the said order. The contention made by Mr. Amit Sharma that in the absence of a partition of the suit property, the claim of the proposed defendants on the basis of the agreement to sell would not be maintainable. The contention made by Mr. Amit Sharma appears to be incorrect. The agreement to sell was entered into between plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and defendants No. 11(A) to 11(G) on 04.10.2017. Earlier, a suit for the specific performance of the 6 contract was filed, and it was compromised between the parties before the National Lok Adalat on 09.12.2017. Thus, the right had accrued in favour of the proposed defendants over the suit property on 9.12.2017, and therefore, the learned Trial Court rightly allowed the application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of the necessary party and proper party and genuineness of the document, in the matter of M/s J.N. Real Estate Vs. Shailendra Pradhan and Ors. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 519 in Para-32 held as under:- “32. Having regard to the material on record, we are of the view that the High Court should not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court impleading the original defendant no. 8 (appellant herein) as one of the defendants in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. We say so because the genuiness of the transaction, if any, including the genuinemess of the documents is to be looked into in the course of the trial. A party who is seeking impleadment may not be a necessary party but still, could be termed as a proper party. There is a fine distinction between a necessary party and a proper party. A necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. Whereas a proper party is one who though not a necessary party is a person whose presence would enable the court to effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit.” 11. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of H. Anjanapaa & Ors. Vs. A Prabhakar & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 183, has held that even the transferee pendente lite, who has acquired interest, would be virtually interested in the litigation. It is further held that such a person would be entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where his predecessor-in-interest is made a party to 7 the litigation, he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case. The relevant Paras- 54 to 58 are reproduced herein below:- “54. In Amit Kumar Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon, AIR 2005 SC 2209, this Court held that a transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, where the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant; the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party, under Order XXII Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party. As already noticed, the court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests. The court has held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in- interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where his predecessor- in-interest is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case. This judgment has been followed inThomson Press (India) Ltd.(supra). 55. In fact, the scope of Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC is similar. Therefore, the principles applicable to Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, in order to bring a purchaser pendente lite on record, are applicable to Order I Rule 10 CPC. Under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, the Court is required to record a finding that person sought to be impleaded as party in the suit is either necessary or proper party. While Section 146 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC confers right upon the legal representative of a party to the suit to be impleaded with the leave of the Court and continue the litigation. While deciding an application under Section 146 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, the Court is not require to go in the controversy as to whether person sought to be impleaded as party in the suit is either necessary or proper party. If the person sought to be impleaded as party is legal representative of a party to the suit, it is sufficient for the Court to order impleadment/substitution of such person. 8 56. Thus, a lis pendens transferee though not brought on record under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, is entitled to seek leave to appeal against the final decree passed against this transferor, the defendant in the suit. However, whether to grant such leave or not is within the discretion of the court and such discretion should be exercised judiciously in the facts and circumstances of each case. 57. Having regard to the fact that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit instituted for specific performance and that too, while the injunction against the original owner (transferor) was operating, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively could not be said to have even made out any good case for grant of leave to appeal. 58. From a conspectus of all the aforesaid judgments, touching upon the present aspect, broadly, the following would emerge: i. First, for the purpose of impleading a transferee pendente lite, the facts and circumstances should be gone into and basing on the necessary facts, the Court can permit such a party to come on record, either under Order I Rule 10 CPC or under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, as a general principle; ii. Secondly, a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right; iii. Thirdly, there is no absolute rule that such a transferee pendente lite, with the leave of the Court should, in all cases, be allowed to come on record as a party; iv. Fourthly, the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite would depend upon the nature of the suit and appreciation of the material available on record; v. Fifthly, where a transferee pendente lite does not ask for leave to come on record, that would obviously be at his peril, and the suit may be improperly conducted by the plaintiff on record; vi. Sixthly, merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the 9 concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented; vii. Seventhly, the sale transaction pendente lite is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act; and, viii. Eighthly, a transferee pendente lite, being an assignee of interest in the property, as envisaged under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, can seek leave of the Court to come record on his own or at the instance of either party to the suit.” 12. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 13. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 14. Interim order granted on 06.09.2024 is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti