Full Text
12th November, 2014 SMT. IVA NANDI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.S.K.Bhaduri, Advocate.
Through
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 06.9.2014 which has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1908 (CPC). By the application under Section 151 CPC the petitioner/plaintiff sought direction to the respondents/defendants to disclose the names of the buyers to whom the suit property was sold.
2. In reply to the application, the respondents/defendants stated that they are still in possession of the suit property, and they had not transferred the 2014:DHC:5919 possession of the suit property to the buyers. The trial court has dismissed the application stating that the suit is only for injunction and not a suit for declaration of the title.
3. In my opinion, since injunction is a relief in personam and against a specific person, the trial court was justified in making the observations that the relief of injunction as claimed is only against the existing respondents/defendants, and therefore the transferees of the suit property need not be brought on record. In any case, in my opinion, the issue argued by the petitioner is answered against the petitioner/plaintiff by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and Others AIR 2001 SC 2552 which holds that once there is a devolution of interest during the pendency of the suit under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, there is no need to bring on record the subsequent transferees and the suit can continue against the original defendants in the suit, and the onus is upon the transferees if they want to get themselves impleaded as defendants, but in the absence of impleadment of the subsequent transferees as defendants the same will not mean that the decree passed against the existing defendants in the suit will not bind the transferees.
4. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 12, 2014 KA