Sanjiv Kumar vs Shakuntla Devi
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 747
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.1052 OF 2025)
SANJIV KUMAR … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SHAKUNTLA DEVI AND
OTHERS
… RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal assails the interim order
dated 13.11.2024 (hereinafter referred as the
“impugned order”) passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter
referred as the “High Court”), whereby it allowed
the application CM No. 8414-C of 2024 in the
Regular Second Appeal No. 1795 of 1990 filed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NAVEEN D
Date: 2026.07.27
18:47:59 IST
Reason:
by the Appellant (plaintiff) herein by recalling its
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 1 of 28
earlier order dated 13.08.2024 and proceeded to
adjudicate upon the applications filed by the
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (subsequent
purchasers), i.e., (i) CM No. 13866-C of 2023 for
condonation of delay of 2109 days under section
5 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (ii) CM No. 13867-
C of 2023 for restoration of Regular Second
Appeal under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as
the “CPC”); and (iii) CM No. 13868-C of 2023
and CM No. 13835-836-C of 2023 in XOBJS-20-
C-1990 for impleadment in the main appeal as
well as cross-objections under Order XXII Rule
10 of the CPC.
3. The primary grievance of the Appellant is that
the High Court vide common impugned order
dated 13.11.2024 allowed the aforementioned
applications, thereby condoned the delay of
2109 days, restored the second appeal
(originally preferred by Respondent Nos. 1 and
2, the so asserting prior owners of the suit
property), and impleaded Respondent Nos. 3
and 4 as assignees of the Respondent No. 1 in
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 2 of 28
the main appeal as well as cross-objections who
had purchased a part of the suit property.
4. At the outset, we note that the Appellant has
inadvertently impugned order dated 13.11.2024
passed in application CM No.8414-C of 2024
which was filed by him for recall of an earlier
order dated 13.08.2024 and the same was
allowed by the High Court. However, during the
Court hearing the Appellant clarified that he is
aggrieved with the even date order passed in the
applications filed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4
which were allowed by the High Court for
impleadment as respondents being transferees
on the basis of registered sale deeds in the
cross-objections and appellants in the main
appeal along with applications for condonation
of delay and the application for restoration of
the main appeal. Though, this appeal as it
stands may not be sustainable, however, at the
request of the counsel and in the interest of
substantive justice, we proceed to examine the
matter on merits.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 3 of 28
5. Brief facts are that the original Plaintiff-
Bhagwan Dai (now deceased) as well as
Respondent No.1-Shakuntala Devi were both
widows of Girdhari Lal. The suit property
belonged to Girdhari Lal and after his death a
suit was filed by original plaintiff Bhagwan Dai
seeking decree of declaration to the effect that
she is the exclusive owner of part of property
bearing No.4677 measuring 22 x 22 ft. as well
as store measuring 11 x 11 ft., which are in
possession of the tenants. She further sought
declaration that she is the owner and in
possession of remaining part of the building
bearing No.4677 and building bearing No.4674
to the extent of 1/2 share with Respondent
No.1, being the owner of the remaining 1/2
share (hereinafter referred as “suit property”).
6. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that
original plaintiff - Bhagwan Dai died on
29.12.1985 without leaving any legal
representatives. It further held that the
Appellant herein, Sanjiv Kumar, failed to prove
that he was her adopted son. Conversely, the
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 4 of 28
Will dated 12.03.1982 executed by Girdhari Lal
in favour of Respondent No. 2 (Varinder Kumar
– son of Girdhari Lal & Respondent No. 1) was
held to be proved.
7. On appeal, the First Appellate Court partly
reversed the findings of the trial court and held
that Appellant – Sanjiv Kumar is the validly
adopted son of Bhagwan Dai. Further, the court
recognized the ownership of the original plaintiff
qua portion of property no. 4677 (shown as ‘C’
in the site plan) which was in possession of
Budh Singh and Bihari Lal (tenants) as this
property was in her possession even prior to
execution of Will in lieu of maintenance and as
such, she became the full owner of this property
by virtue of provisions of Section 14(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Further, restraint
orders were passed against Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 (prior owners) from alienating this
particular property only.
8. Aggrieved by the appellate court judgment,
defendants – Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred
a second appeal before the High Court
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 5 of 28
challenging the findings of the First Appellate
Court regarding validity of adoption of plaintiff-
Appellant and ownership of the property no.
4677 which was under possession of tenants. In
the second appeal, the plaintiff-Appellant filed
cross-objections No. 20-C-1990 praying that the
entire suit of the original-plaintiff Bhagwan Dai
be decreed and the plaintiff-Appellant be
declared owner. The appeal was instituted on
24.08.1990. Crucially, during the pendency of
litigation, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Santosh
Rani and Sh. Mohan Lal purchased property No.
4677/A from Respondent No. 1 (acting as the
power of attorney holder for Respondent No. 2)
via a registered sale deed dated 28.06.1990.
9. Thereafter, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
(subsequent purchasers) moved an application
bearing CM No.6306-C of 1999 for impleadment
in the main appeal under Order I Rule 10 of the
CPC. It is pertinent to mention that the subject
matter of the main appeal was confined solely to
Property No. 4677, over which the subsequent
purchasers asserted no claim. Furthermore, for
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 6 of 28
reasons best known to them, the subsequent
purchasers, omitted to prefer an impleadment
application in the cross-objections filed by the
Appellant - the very proceeding in which the
property purchased by them was actually in
dispute. The said impleadment application was
dismissed by the High Court vide order dated
19.05.2000 holding that the applicants
(subsequent purchasers) have purchased the
property from prior owners in defiance of the
order of the First Appellate Court vide which the
prior owners were injuncted upon from
alienating the property. In such circumstances,
the assignee is not entitled to be impleaded as
proper party because of the principle of lis
pendens .
10. It so happened that on 02.02.2018, both the
main appeal as well as cross-objections were
dismissed for non-prosecution. While the
Appellant successfully sought restoration of the
cross-objections on 19.07.2019, no such effort
was made by the prior owners despite requests
made by the subsequent purchasers to restore
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 7 of 28
the main appeal. This prompted the subsequent
purchasers to move fresh applications, alleging
collusion between the prior owners and the
Appellant, and asserting that as assignees, their
interest in the lis was being jeopardised.
11. The High Court vide order dated 13.08.2024,
directed that the applications shall be heard
together with main appeal and cross-objections.
12. Another application i.e., CM No.8414-C of 2024
was subsequently filed by the Appellant seeking
to recall the earlier order dated 13.08.2024 of
the High Court seeking earlier applications filed
by the subsequent purchasers be heard prior to
the hearing of the main appeal.
13. Vide impugned interim order dated 13.11.2024,
the application CM No.8414-C of 2024 was
allowed and earlier filed applications were heard
the same day.
14. The High Court observed in this order that the
findings recorded by the court in earlier order
dated 19.05.2000 in application under Order I
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 8 of 28
Rule 10 of the CPC that the subsequent
purchasers have purchased property from prior
owners in defiance of the order of the Civil
Court, vide which the prior owners were
injuncted upon not to alienate the property, is
factually incorrect, as also, admitted by the
Appellant as there was no injunction qua
transfer of the shop purchased by the
subsequent purchasers. The injunction order
was passed only with respect to property no.
4677 (shown as ‘C’ in the site plan) which was
in possession of Budh Singh and Bihari Lal
(tenants) while the property sold to Respondent
Nos. 3 & 4 was property No. 4677/A, which is
different from that of injuncted property.
15. The Court further held that there is no dispute
that the sale is hit by doctrine of lis pendens but,
bare perusal of order dated 19.05.2000 would
reveal that same was passed under
misconception with respect to the factual
situation. The High Court explicitly rejected the
contention of the Respondents that fraud was
played upon the Court.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 9 of 28
16. Consequently, the High Court held that though
the doctrine of res judicata is applicable so far
as the interlocutory applications are concerned,
however, where an erroneous decision is taken,
the same does not operate as res judicata .
Reliance was placed upon decision of this court
in the case of Allahabad Development
1
Authority v. Nasiruzzaman and Others .
17. The High Court not only directed the
impleadment of subsequent purchasers in the
main appeal and cross-objections as assignees
of prior owners by placing reliance upon
Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak
Builders and Investors Private Limited and
2
Others but also restored the main appeal to its
original number after condoning the delay.
18. Aggrieved by the order of condonation of delay
by the High Court, restoration of the main
appeal and impleadment of Respondent Nos. 3
and 4 in the main appeal as well as cross-
1
(1996) 6 SCC 424
2
(2013) 5 SCC 397
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 10 of 28
objections, the Appellant has approached this
Court contending that earlier order dated
19.05.2000 passed by the High Court
dismissing the application of impleadment
under Order I Rule 10 of CPC would operate as
the res judicata on the subsequent application
filed by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under
Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.
19. The counsel for Appellant submits that even an
earlier erroneous decision, which has attained
finality, would operate as res judicata , for this,
reliance has been placed upon judgments of this
Court in State of West Bengal v. Hemant
3
Kumar Bhattacharjee and Others ,
Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna
4
Mukherjee and Others and Daryao and
Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
5
Others .
20. The counsel for Appellant further submits that
the only exception to the principle of res judicata
3
1962 SCC OnLine SC 319
4
(1952) 2 SCC 648
5
1961 SCC OnLine SC 21
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 11 of 28
is lack of jurisdiction or fraud or opposed by law
which is not the case herein. The case of
Allahabad Development Authority (supra) is
to be distinguished as there is no statutory
prohibition or direction nor is it alleged or
pleaded that earlier order was passed despite a
statutory prohibition or direction or that the
High Court lacked jurisdiction to pass the
earlier order. Moreover, the said judgment has
been distinguished by this Court in S.
Ramachandra Rao v. S. Nagabhushana Rao
6
and Others .
21. Learned counsel for the Appellant concluded the
arguments by submitting that the second
application filed by subsequent purchasers
seeks same relief on the basis of same sale deed
and between the same parties therefore, would
be hit by principle of res judicata . The earlier
order dated 19.05.2000 passed by the High
Court would bind the coordinate bench at the
subsequent stage of same proceedings. Further,
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the subsequent
6
(2024) 17 SCC 361
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 12 of 28
purchasers, have no right to file an application
for restoration.
22. On the other hand, the counsel for subsequent
purchasers – Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, submits
that the application under Order XXII Rule 10
CPC is not barred by principle of res judicata as
fresh cause of action arose on 02.02.2018 when
appeal and cross-objections were dismissed but
later on an application by the Appellant, the
cross-objections were restored but not the main
appeal. Therefore, the earlier dismissal of
application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC does not
bar present application. The scope under Order
I Rule 10 is different from that under Order XXII
Rule 10 of the CPC.
23. The counsel for subsequent purchasers further
submits that section 146 of the CPC also
protects the assignee pendente lite . Under
section 146 of the CPC Respondent Nos. 3 and
4 were entitled to move an application under
Order XLI Rule 19 CPC for restoration of the
appeal. Further, previous application under
Order I Rule 10 of CPC was not filed in the cross-
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 13 of 28
objections. Also, the previous order dated
19.05.2000 would not operate as res judicata
since it was obtained by playing fraud upon the
court.
24. Learned counsel for subsequent purchasers
concluded the arguments by submitting that no
prejudice would be caused to the Appellant if
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are impleaded in the
main appeal as well as the cross-objections
especially when the prior owners have lost
interest in the appeal after the sale. There is
collusion between Appellant and the prior
owners as they are related to each other.
25. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
relied upon: Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal and
7
Others , Amit Kumar Shaw and Another v.
8
Farida Khatoon and Another , Smt. Saila
Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi
9
and Another , Thomson Press (supra) and
Allahabad Development Authority (supra) .
7
(2004) 2 SCC 601
8
(2005) 11 SCC 403
9
1958 SCC OnLine SC 140
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 14 of 28
26. Having heard the learned counsel for the
Appellant and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and
considering the written submissions filed by
both the parties as also the impugned order(s),
we find it apposite that prior to undertaking and
answering the aforementioned submissions as
raised, it is imperative to delve into the statutory
provisions as well as the existing jurisprudence
as developed by this Court while dealing with
such provisions relatable to (i) whether the
doctrine of res judicata would apply upon an
earlier decision based upon erroneous
consideration of facts?; (ii) whether in the
present facts and circumstances there can be a
bar on a subsequent application under Order
XXII Rule 10 of the CPC in the main appeal? and
(iii) whether application under Order XXII Rule
10 of the CPC be allowed in the cross-objections
at this stage?
27. Section 11 of the CPC would be relevant which
reads as follows:
“ 11. Res judicata. —No Court shall try any
suit or issue in which the matter directly and
substantially in issue has been directly and
substantially in issue in a former suit between
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 15 of 28
the same parties, or between parties under
whom they or any of them claim, litigating
under the same title, in a Court competent to
try such subsequent suit or the suit in which
such issue has been subsequently raised, and
has been heard and finally decided by such
Court.
xxx xxx xxx
Explanation IV.—Any matter which might and
ought to have been made ground of defence or
attack in such former suit shall be deemed to
have been a matter directly and substantially
in issue in such suit.” (emphasis supplied)
It is, by now, a settled position that the doctrine
of res judicata is applicable on subsequent
stage(s) of same proceedings if, the question or
issue involved has been decided at an earlier
stage of same litigation as held in S.
Ramachandra Rao (supra) . Further, it is also
well settled, as laid down in several decisions,
that a judicial decision binds whether it is right
or wrong. An error of law or fact, committed by
a judicial or quasi-judicial body cannot be
impeached otherwise than in appeal, unless it
relates to a matter of jurisdiction. The findings
would be binding on the parties as held in
Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and Others
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 16 of 28
10
v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy and Hemant
Kumar Bhattacharjee (supra) . In the case of
Dr. Shah Faesal and Others v. Union of India
11
and Another , Sulthan Said Ibrahim v.
12
Prakasan and Others and other catena of
judgments have settled that ruling of a
coordinate bench binds subsequent coordinate
benches.
28. It has been reiterated by the Supreme Court
repeatedly that to attract the doctrine of res
judicata there must be conscious adjudication
of an issue. A plea of res judicata cannot be
claimed unless the judgment carries an
expression of an opinion on the merits.
29. In the present case, the earlier application
under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC filed by the
subsequent purchasers in the regular second
appeal was decided on merits even though
based upon an erroneous consideration of facts
10
(1970) 1 SCC 613
11
(2020) 4 SCC 1
12
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1218
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 17 of 28
therein, therefore, the findings of the Court
would be binding upon the parties.
30. The case of Allahabad Development
Authority (supra) as relied upon by the High
Court and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is not
applicable to the present set of facts as there is
no statutory prohibition or direction nor is it
alleged or pleaded that earlier order was passed
despite a statutory prohibition or direction or
that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to pass
the earlier order.
31. Therefore, we are unable to concur with the
reasoning provided by the High Court in the
impugned order.
32. Now, the question to be considered is whether
in the present facts and circumstances would
there be a bar of res judicata on a subsequent
application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC
filed by the subsequent purchasers for their
impleadment in the main appeal.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 18 of 28
33. Under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC the court is
required to assess as to whether a party has
been improperly joined or any person who ought
to have been joined or whose persons before the
court may be necessary in order to enable the
court effectually and completely to adjudicate to
settle the questions in the suit is required to be
added or deleted. Whereas under Order XXII
Rule 10 of the CPC read with Section 146 of the
CPC, the Court on creation or devolution of any
interest during the pendency of the suit/appeal
is required to assess as to whether the
suit/appeal is required to be continued by or
against the person to or on whom such interest
has devolved.
“ Order I Rule 10. Suit in name of wrong
plaintiff. —(1) Where a suit has been
instituted in the name of the wrong person as
plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has
been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff,
the Court may at any stage of the suit, if
satisfied that the suit has been instituted
through a bona fide mistake, and that it is
necessary for the determination of the real
matter in dispute so to do, order any other
person to be substituted or added as plaintiff
upon such terms as the Court thinks just.
(2) Court may strike out or add parties. —
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings,
either upon or without the application of either
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 19 of 28
party, and on such terms as may appear to the
Court to be just, order that the name of any
party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, be struck out, and that the name of
any person who ought to have been joined,
whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose
presence before the Court may be necessary in
order to enable the Court effectually and
completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the suit, be added.”
(emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
“ Order XXII Rule 10. Procedure in case of
assignment before final order in suit. —(1)
In other cases of an assignment, creation or
devolution of any interest during the pendency
of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be
continued by or against the person to or upon
whom such interest has come or devolved.
(2) The attachment of a decree pending an
appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an
interest entitling the person who procured such
attachment to the benefit of sub-rule (1).
10A. Duty of pleader to communicate to
Court death of a party. —Wherever a pleader
appearing for a party to the suit comes to know
of the death of that party, he shall inform the
Court about it, and the Court shall thereupon
give notice of such death to the other party,
and, for this purpose, the contract between the
pleader and the deceased party shall be
deemed to subsist.
11. Application of Order to appeals.
—In
the application of this Order to appeals, so far
as may be, the word “Plaintiff” shall be held to
include an appellant, the word “defendant” a
respondant, and the word “suit” an appeal.”
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 20 of 28
34. Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC is a specific
enabling provision governing devolution of
interest during the pendency of a suit or appeal.
Its operation is distinct from the general joinder
of party power under Order I Rule 10. The
court's power under Order XXII Rule 10 is
triggered by a factual event by an assignment,
creation, or devolution of interest and not
merely by a party's desire to join proceedings.
Only a prima facie satisfaction of devolution is
required and no detailed inquiry into title is
conducted at this stage. The provision applies at
every stage, including appellate proceedings,
and a subsequent purchaser who acquires
interest pendente lite may seek substitution or
addition through this route. Therefore, the
dismissal of an application under Order I Rule
10 of the CPC does not, as a general rule,
operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent
application under Order XXII Rule 10.
35. The two provisions address fundamentally
distinct legal situations, and a rejection under
one does not constitute a final adjudication on
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 21 of 28
the merits of the other. Order I Rule 10 CPC
governs the addition or deletion of parties who
are necessary or proper parties to the suit ab
initio , i.e., parties who ought to have been joined
at the inception of the suit. Order XXII Rule 10
CPC governs the situation where interest in the
subject matter of the suit devolves upon a third
party during the pendency of the suit, i.e., a
transferee or assignee pendente lite . The
provision enables such a person to apply for
leave to continue the proceedings or be brought
on record as a representative in interest.
Though both the legal provisions are distinct in
nature but, remedy sought is similar in nature
i.e., impleadment of a party. The scope of Order
I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 do overlap in
certain factual matrices.
36. Where the Order I Rule 10 application was
considered and rejected on its merits i.e., the
court actually examined the transferee's claim,
the genuineness/bona fides of the transfer, and
the nature of the interest, and that order was
not appealed or reviewed, a second application
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 22 of 28
under Order XXII Rule 10 raising the claim
based on the same transfer, same interest, same
facts would ordinarily be barred by the
principles of res judicata as issue has been
decided on merits and attained finality. This bar
however, would not apply if, the earlier rejection
was on a technical or procedural ground
without an adjudication on the merits of the
transferee's interest, or there is a fresh
devolution or assignment after the rejection of
an application under Order I Rule 10, giving rise
to a distinct cause not earlier considered, or
when the earlier order is itself under challenge
and has not attained finality.
37. The record reveals that the subsequent
purchasers had previously sought an identical
relief of impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of
the CPC, predicated upon the same registered
sale deed executed in their favour. The right to
seek substitution or impleadment, if any under
Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC, had squarely
accrued and was triggered at the time of filing
the initial application. Therefore, in the present
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 23 of 28
case, the remedies under Order I Rule 10 and
Order XXII Rule 10 are overlapping as they are
addressing the same underlying question as to
whether a person who has acquired an interest
pendente lite should be brought on record. They
are not different causes of action; rather they
are different procedural doors to the same relief.
38. Consequently, the underlying issue regarding
the subsequent buyer’s right to be impleaded on
the strength of the said title was earlier directly
and substantially in issue between the same
parties, litigating under the same title, before a
court of competent jurisdiction, and was
conclusively decided against them. The
subsequent application under Order XXII Rule
10 of the CPC is nothing but a re-agitation of a
settled issue under a different statutory
provision, which is impermissible and hit by the
principles of res judicata . This Court, in the case
of Sulthan Said (supra) and B.S. Lalitha and
13
Others v. Bhuvanesh and Others , has
clarified that once an issue or a summary
13
2026 SCC OnLine SC 860
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 24 of 28
challenge (e.g., rejecting a plaint) has been
decided and attained finality, a litigant cannot
re-agitate the same objections. This applies even
if they switch the specific legal provision used or
have different legal representatives file the
application.
39. Even though the previous order was based upon
erroneous consideration of facts, appropriate
legal remedies were available for the subsequent
purchasers - Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to
challenge the findings of the earlier order dated
19.05.2000. Nevertheless, it is also not the case
of the subsequent purchasers that they are
entitled to any portion of the suit property which
were under dispute in the main appeal. Hence,
subsequent purchasers - Respondent Nos. 3 &
4 cannot be impleaded in the main appeal nor
can the main appeal be restored.
40. However, as noted above the earlier application
under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was filed for
impleadment in the main appeal only and not in
the cross-objections. Therefore, the principle of
res judicata will not apply qua the application
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 25 of 28
filed under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC in the
cross-objections preferred by the Appellant.
41. In the instant case, the main appeal filed by the
prior owners and the cross-objections filed by
the Appellant were dismissed for non-
prosecution. Therefore, the rights of the parties
including, subsequent purchasers were fortified
in accordance with the First Appellate Court
judgment and decree.
42. Thereafter, despite requests by the subsequent
purchasers to the prior owners, they neither
appeared before the Court nor took any steps for
restoration of the main appeal while the cross-
objections were revived and restored on an
application being allowed as filed by the
Appellant. This resulted in material change in
circumstances causing grave prejudice to the
rights of the subsequent purchasers because of
non-prosecution by the prior owners qua the
property purchased which is the subject-matter
in the cross-objections. Also, the possibility of a
collusion between the Appellant and sellers of
the subsequent purchasers - Respondent Nos. 3
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 26 of 28
and 4 cannot be ruled out. This raises a new
cause of action in favour of the subsequent
purchasers which was neither a “matter directly
or substantially” in issue during the earlier
hearing on application under Order I Rule 10
nor a matter which could ("might and ought")
have been raised.
43. In case of Thomson Press (supra) , it was held
that once transferor pendente lite loses interest
in the litigation, the transferee can be added as
a party as it may suffer prejudice on account of
the transferor losing interest. In Amit Kumar
(supra) , this Court stated that a transferee
pendente lite is vitally interested in the litigation
to the extent he has acquired his interest from
the respondent, and the latter (respondent) may
not properly defend the suit, he may collude
with the plaintiff. Therefore, a transferee
pendente lite is entitled to be heard on merits in
a case where his predecessor in interest was
made a party.
44. Consequently, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is set aside in
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 27 of 28
part, to the extent that it directs the restoration
of the main appeal and the impleadment of the
subsequent purchasers therein. Conversely, the
High Court order allowing the application for
impleadment of the subsequent purchasers as
respondents in the cross-objections is sustained
and upheld.
45. The Appeal is partly allowed in above terms.
46. There shall be no order as to costs.
47. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
…….……..………..………………..J.
[ SANJAY KAROL ]
…….……..………..………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 27, 2026.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.1052/2025 Page 28 of 28