Plaintiff as *Dominus Litis* May Implead Transferees *Pendente Lite* to Avoid Multiplicity of Proceedings

Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 68A/2024) seeking a declaration of her status as the daughter of Late Shri Jagdish Sharanlal Sinha and a claim for an equal share in parental properties

Pending the suit and a temporary injunction application, the original defendants sold a portion of the suit property to the petitioners in M.P. No. 3138/2026 via a registered sale deed dated 25.11.2024, which falsely recited that no litigation was pending

The plaintiff moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead these subsequent purchasers

The Trial Court allowed the impleadment on 13.05.2025 and subsequently rejected a review application on 20.04.2026

The original defendants and subsequent purchasers challenged these orders via Miscellaneous Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the impleadment of transferees pendente lite (subsequent purchasers) is necessary or proper for the effective adjudication of the suit

2. Whether the Trial Court (Civil Judge, Junior Division) lacked jurisdiction to pass the impleadment order because the sale deed value exceeded the court's pecuniary limits

The Court applied Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, which grants discretionary power to the court to add parties necessary for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

It relied on the doctrine of dominus litis, establishing the plaintiff's right to choose defendants as recognized in Robin Ramjibhai Patel v. Anandibai Rama

It further applied Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding lis pendens, noting it does not bar impleadment but renders transfers subservient to the suit's outcome

Key precedents included Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind, which held there is no bar to impleading transferees with notice, and H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar, which outlined that impleadment depends on the nature of the suit and material on record

The Court reasoned that the power under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is discretionary and must be exercised based on specific facts

Since the defendants alienated the property despite knowledge of the pending litigation and temporary injunction application, the subsequent purchasers were relevant parties to ensure they are bound by the final decree and to prevent further transfers

The Court rejected the petitioners' reliance on Suresh v. Geeta, noting that in the present case, the impleadment was sought by the plaintiff (the dominus litis) at the trial's initial stage, rather than by a transferee at the appellate stage

Regarding the jurisdictional challenge, the Court observed that the pecuniary jurisdiction is determined by the reliefs claimed at the time of filing; the mere valuation of a sale deed in an impleadment application (where an amendment challenging said deed is still pending) does not oust the Trial Court's jurisdiction to manage the array of parties

It affirmed that even if a transferee is not a "necessary" party in every case, their impleadment is permissible to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

The Court dismissed both Miscellaneous Petitions, upholding the impleadment of the subsequent purchasers and the rejection of the review application