Transferee Pendente Lite May Be Impleaded Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC to Protect Devolved Interest

The petitioners and respondent No. 3 filed a suit (O.S.No.350/2008) for partition, which was decreed on 25.03.2017, granting 1/8th share to each party

While an appeal (R.A.No.31/2022) filed by respondent No. 2 was pending, respondent No. 1 purchased a portion of the suit property via a sale deed dated 29.01.2024

Respondent No. 1 subsequently filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC to be impleaded as an additional appellant

The petitioners challenged the First Appellate Court's order dated 29.11.2025, which allowed this impleadment

Whether the applicant/purchaser pendente lite is entitled to be brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC or must come on record only under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC

The Court applied Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC, which governs the assignment or devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit, allowing such proceedings to continue by or against the person upon whom interest has devolved with the leave of the court

the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Amith Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon, which held that a transferee pendente lite is a representative in interest

Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that the right of a purchaser pendente lite to be impleaded stems from the devolution of interest under Order 22 Rule 10 rather than the doctrine of necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10

The Court distinguished between Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC, noting that while the former deals with necessary and proper parties for effective adjudication, the latter ensures the continuity of litigation when interest is transferred

The Court reasoned that although a pendente lite purchaser is bound by the doctrine of lis pendens, they are entitled to seek impleadment to protect the interest acquired during the litigation

In the present case, since respondent No. 1 established a prima facie devolution of interest through the 2024 sale deed, she occupies the position of a representative in interest

The Court held that a transferee cannot be turned away if they apply to be heard, as they might otherwise suffer from the transferor's possible lack of interest in the post-transfer litigation

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that respondent No. 1 may proceed as an appellant but must take the proceedings as she finds them, remaining bound by all previous acts and pleadings of her transferor. The Appellate Court was requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously