Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | Transferee Pendente Lite Cannot Be Impleaded Merely on Claim of Bona Fide Purchase: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Doctrine of Lis Pendens Applies Irrespective of Transferee's Knowledge – Presence of Such Purchaser Not Required for Effective Adjudication" - In a clear reaffirmation of the doctrine of lis pendens and the statutory objectives of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 29 September 2025 set aside the order of the Trial Court that had allowed the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite, despite a subsisting interim injunction against alienation of the suit property.

Justice Mandeep Pannu held that a purchaser of property during the pendency of litigation is neither a necessary nor a proper party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that such persons are automatically bound by the decree passed in the suit, regardless of whether they are impleaded.

"Impleadment of Purchaser During Litigation Defeats Purpose of Section 52 TPA – Mere Claim of Bona Fide Purchase No Ground for Addition as Party"

The core issue before the Court arose from an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by Amit Walia, who claimed to have purchased the suit property from defendant no.2 on 05.06.2024, despite a prior interim order dated 20.05.2024, wherein the Trial Court had restrained alienation of the suit property.

The plaintiffs, who had instituted a civil suit on 18.05.2024, challenged the sale deed dated 08.09.2022 between defendant no.1 and defendant no.2, and objected to the impleadment of Amit Walia on the ground that the transfer to him was made during the pendency of the litigation and was in direct violation of an express judicial restraint.

The Trial Court, however, allowed the impleadment, opining that the question of whether the purchaser was a bona fide buyer for consideration would be determined during trial.

"Doctrine of Lis Pendens Operates Irrespective of Knowledge – Transferee Is Bound by Decree, Whether Party to Suit or Not"

The High Court rejected the reasoning of the Trial Court, holding that: “Whether or not the applicant had knowledge of the pendency of the litigation or the interim injunction is wholly immaterial... the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies irrespective of such knowledge.”

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. [(2012) 8 SCC 384], the Court reiterated that transferees pendente lite are not necessary or proper parties to suits, and that:

“Their impleadment is not required for complete or effective adjudication of the issues between the original parties.”

"Trial Court Committed a Manifest Error in Treating Transferee Pendente Lite as a Necessary Party"

Justice Pannu criticised the Trial Court's reasoning and held that allowing such impleadment would complicate the trial and defeat the very object of the lis pendens doctrine:

“The impleadment of the applicant is not necessary because the dispute in the suit is essentially between the plaintiffs and the original parties to the impugned sale deed.”

The Court further observed: “The applicant is bound by the doctrine of lis pendens and will be governed by the outcome of the suit, even without being impleaded.”

Notably, the Court found that the applicant’s assertion of being a bona fide purchaser could not override the statutory bar under Section 52 TPA, especially when the interim injunction had already been recorded in revenue records as early as 27.05.2024, through rapat no.720

“Filing of Suit Creates a Statutory Embargo on Transfers — Transferee’s Rights Are Subordinate and Conditional”

In a well-reasoned judgment, the High Court emphasized the principle that once a suit is instituted, any transfer of the disputed property is subordinate to the outcome of that suit.

"The doctrine is founded on the principle that the subject matter of a pending litigation must be preserved until the rights of the parties are finally adjudicated."

The Court clarified that the operation of Section 52 TPA is automatic and not dependent on actual or constructive notice to the transferee. It is designed to safeguard judicial efficacy, by preventing multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting outcomes.

Impleadment Rejected, Trial to Proceed Without Purchaser Pendente Lite

The High Court, therefore, set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 20.05.2025, and directed that:

“The Trial Court shall proceed with the suit expeditiously in accordance with law without impleading the applicant as a party.”

In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the established position of law that:

• A transferee pendente lite is automatically bound by the final decree;

• Knowledge of the suit or injunction is immaterial;

• Impleadment of such a party is legally impermissible under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

All miscellaneous applications pending in the revision petition were disposed of accordingly.

Date of Decision: 29 September 2025