- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6077 WP No. 108599 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.108599 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: GIRISH S/O. CHANNABASAYYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND SELF LEMPLOYED, R/O: NEAR NEELAM TAI MATH, ADARASH NAGAR, GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARAVIND D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TAMMAPPA S/O. BASAPPA KURAHATTI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR., SUNDRAWWA W/O. ASHOKRADDI DONI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, SAMBHAPUR, TQ AND DIST: GADAG. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.G.KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT: GADAG IN O.S.NO.109/2011 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19.03.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.9 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-F CONSEQUENTIALLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/PROPOSED DEFENDANT NO.7 UNDER O.1 R.10 OF C.P.C. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.09 15:15:05 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6077 WP No. 108599 of 2019 ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the impeding applicant/proposed defendant No.7 feeling aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, rejecting the impleading application on the ground that petitioner is a pendente lite purchaser and therefore, he is not entitled to come on record. 2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed suit seeking a decree against defendants No.1 to 5 to direct them to execute registered re-conveyance deed in respect of suit schedule property based on an agreement of reconveyance deed 27.10.2008 executed by husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants No.2 to 5. Pending suit, it appears defendants No.1 to 5 have sold the property in gross violation of interim injunction granted against defendants No.1 to 5. Though, a pendente lite purchaser has no independent defence in a pending suit and a transferee/pendente lite would be bound by the decree just as much as he was a party to the suit, this - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6077 WP No. 108599 of 2019 Court having regard to the nature of relief sought in the present suit, is of the view that the petitioner herein was entitled to come on the record. Though petitioner being a pendente lite purchaser cannot claim any protection under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act and he would be bound by the decree, he is entitled to contest the suit to the limited extent to ensure that his vendors do not give up the claim and collude with the plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment cited by the counsel appearing for plaintiff in the case of H. Anjanappa and others vs. A. Prabhakar and others1, would in fact come to the aid of impleading applicant rather than plaintiff. The Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the right of a pendente lite purchaser and his right to seek leave of the Court to come on record and contest the suit has laid down following guidelines. It would be relevant to extract paragraph No.58 of this judgment, which reads as follows: 1 Civil Appeal Nos.1180-1181/2025 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.5785-5786/2023) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6077 WP No. 108599 of 2019 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 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. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6077 WP No. 108599 of 2019 3. The legal principles enunciated in the aforementioned judgment make it abundantly clear that there is no categorical or absolute bar against a transferee pendente lite being impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The Court is vested with the discretion to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding each case, particularly in relation to the nature of the suit and the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff. In the present case, a careful analysis of the pleadings and reliefs sought by the plaintiff reveals that the impleading applicant, although a pendente lite purchaser, has established a prima facie case for being added as a party to the proceedings. The plaintiff's case hinges on a reconveyance agreement dated 27.10.2008, despite the fact that the property had been previously sold by the plaintiff to the husband of defendant No.1 as far back as the year 1978. This, in turn, raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy and enforceability of the plaintiff's claim. Given this background, the presence of the petitioner in the proceedings would be crucial to ensure that the interests - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6077 WP No. 108599 of 2019 of the actual owner and his assignees are protected, and the petitioner is entitled to participate in the litigation, albeit not as a matter of right, but by leave of the Court, in order to safeguard his vested interest in the property. 4. Taking into account the nature of the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff, which includes specific performance of a highly belated agreement for reconveyance, and in light of the petitioner's status as a transferee pendente lite, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient cause to be impleaded in the suit. It is trite law that a pendente lite transferee may not set up an independent defence contrary to the interests of his vendor; however, he is undoubtedly entitled to adopt and support the defence put forth by his vendors in order to protect his legitimate interest arising out of the sale deed executed in his favour. The petitioner's right in the subject property, flowing from a duly executed registered sale deed, though subject to the ultimate outcome of the suit pending in O.S. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6077 WP No. 108599 of 2019 No. 109/2011, cannot be disregarded or sidelined merely on the basis of the pendency of litigation. His impleadment would ensure that the suit is fairly contested and that the rights of bona fide transferees are not jeopardised by possible collusion or negligence on the part of the original defendants. 5. In view of the above, this Court finds that the trial Court erred in declining the petitioner's request for impleadment solely on the ground that the petitioner had purchased the property in violation of an interim injunction order. While such a violation may have procedural consequences, it cannot, by itself, defeat the petitioner's substantive right to participate in the proceedings, especially when the relief claimed directly affects the property in which the petitioner has acquired an interest. The mere act of impleading the petitioner will not, in any manner, cause irreparable prejudice or injustice to the plaintiff. On the contrary, excluding the petitioner from the proceedings may result in grave prejudice to his interest - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6077 WP No. 108599 of 2019 and may also open the doors for potential collusion between the plaintiff and the original defendants, which the petitioner would be powerless to counter if not made a party. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner, though a pendente lite purchaser, is entitled to be brought on record, subject to the understanding that his rights in the property shall abide by the result of the present suit. 6. For the reasons stated supra, this Court passes the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 19.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.109/2011 on I.A.No.9 by learned I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Gadag is hereby set-aside. Consequently, I.A.No.9 is allowed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6077 WP No. 108599 of 2019 iii) Petitioner is permitted to come on record as defendant No.7. However, it is made clear that he is not entitled to file written statement. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE AM/- Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28