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

The respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit (No. 68A/2024) seeking a declaration of her status as the daughter of Late Shri Jagdish Sharanlal Sinha and claiming an equal share in parental properties

During the pendency of the suit and an application for temporary injunction, the defendant-petitioners sold portions of the suit property to subsequent purchasers via a registered sale deed dated 25.11.2024

The plaintiff moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to implead these subsequent purchasers to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

The trial court allowed the impleadment on 13.05.2025 and subsequently rejected a review application filed by the purchasers on 20.04.2026

The petitioners challenged these orders via miscellaneous petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether subsequent purchasers (transferees pendente lite) are necessary or proper parties to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC when the plaintiff is the dominus litis

2. Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction to decide the impleadment application because the sale deed value exceeded the court's pecuniary jurisdiction limit

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 Robin Ramjibhai Patel v. Anandibai Rama regarding the plaintiff’s status as dominus litis

Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind, which clarifies that while Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act renders pendente lite transfers subservient to the litigation, it does not bar the impleadment of such purchasers to protect their interests or prevent collusion

The court further cited H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar, establishing that a transferee pendente lite can be impleaded at the instance of any party to the suit depending on the facts

The court reasoned that since the defendants alienated the property despite being aware of the pending litigation and the temporary injunction application, the purchasers (defendants No. 5 and 6) were proper parties

The Court emphasized that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and has the right to implead parties she believes may be adversely affected by the outcome

Regarding the jurisdictional challenge, the Court held that the trial court's jurisdiction is determined by the reliefs claimed at the time of filing; the mere fact that a subsequent sale deed was valued above Rs. 1 Crore does not strip the Civil Judge of the power to decide an impleadment application, especially while an amendment application questioning that sale deed remains pending

The court found the trial court’s exercise of discretion to be just and aimed at settling all questions involved in the suit completely

The Court held that there is no bar to impleading transferees pendente lite at the initial stage of a suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, even if Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies

The court found no jurisdictional error or palpable illegality warranting interference under Article 227