Condonation of delay : Sufficient cause – Not vigilant about there rights

A Civil appeal concerning a property dispute. The case involves appellants (original plaintiffs) seeking specific performance of a sale agreement and respondents (subsequent purchasers) who bought the property while litigation was ongoing and an injunction was in place. The Court is evaluating whether the High Court was correct in condoning a significant delay and granting the subsequent purchasers leave to appeal, especially given their prior attempt to be impleaded in the original suit was denied and that decision became final. The ruling ultimately sets aside the High Court’s order, finding the delay condonationegregious and the grant of leave to appeal improper, emphasizing that while a pendente lite transfer is not void, it is subservient to the litigation’s outcome.

(A) Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 – Condonation of delay – Sufficient cause – Delay of 586 in filing regular first appeal – Held that High Court committed an egregious error in condoning delay of 586 days in filing the regular first appeal on mere asking – Not convinced with the sufficient cause assigned by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively for the delay of 586 days – In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were vigilant of their so called rights – High Court should have put an end to the entire litigation by declining to condone the delay itself far from granting leave to appeal.

(Para 23)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 96 and 100 – Leave to appeal – Principles – governing the grant of leave to appeal summarised as under:

1. Sections 96 and 100 of the CPC respectively provide for preferring an appeal from an original decree or decree in appeal respectively;

1. The said provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal;

iii. However, it a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the court that he falls within the category of an aggrieved person;

1. It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the court;

1. A person aggrieved, to file an appeal, must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned;

1. The expression “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury;

vii. It would be improper to grant leave to appeal to every person who may in some remote or indirect way be prejudicially affected by a decree or judgment; and

viii. Ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted to persons who, though not parties to the proceedings, would be bound by the decree or judgment in that proceeding and who would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings.

(Para 43)

(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 52 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 146; Order 1 Rule 10; Order 21 Rule 16; Order 22 Rule 10 – Lis pendens – Impleadment as party – A transfer pendete lite is not illegal ipso jure but remains subservient to the pending litigation – Scope of Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC is similar – Therefore, the principles applicable to Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, in order to bring a purchaser pendente lite on record, are applicable to Order I Rule 10 CPC – Under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, the Court is required to record a finding that person sought to be impleaded as party in the suit is either necessary or proper party – While Section 146 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC confers right upon the legal representative of a party to the suit to be impleaded with the leave of the Court and continue the litigation – While deciding an application under Section 146 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, the Court is not require to go in the controversy as to whether person sought to be impleaded as party in the suit is either necessary or proper party – If the person sought to be impleaded as party is legal representative of a party to the suit, it is sufficient for the Court to order impleadment/substitution of such person – Thus, a lis pendens transferee though not brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, is entitled to seek leave to appeal against the final decree passed against this transferor, the defendant in the suit However, whether to grant such leave or not is within the discretion of the court and such discretion should be exercised judiciously in the facts and circumstances of each case.

(Para 55 and 56)

(D) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 96, Order I Rule 10 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 52 – Leave to appeal – Having regard to the fact that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit instituted for specific performance and that too, while the injunction against the original owner (transferor) was operating, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively could not be said to have even made out any good case for grant of leave to appeal – Impugned order passed by the High Court held to be unsustainable in law  and is liable to be set aside –  If the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 feel that they have been duped or cheated by the Respondent No. 7/Defendant No. 3, then it shall be open for them to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law for the purpose of recovery of the amount towards sale consideration paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.

(Para 57, 59 to 61)

(E) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 96, Order I Rule 10 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 52 – Impleadment of transferee pendent lite – Leave to appeal – On the basis of case following principles would emerge –

1. First, for the purpose of impleading a transferee pendente lite, the facts and circumstances should be gone into and basing on the necessary facts, the Court can permit such a party to come on record, either under Order I Rule 10 CPC or under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, as a general principle;

1. Secondly, a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right;

iii. Thirdly, there is no absolute rule that such a transferee pendente lite, with the leave of the Court should, in all cases, be allowed to come on record as a party;

1. Fourthly, the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite would depend upon the nature of the suit and appreciation of the material available on record;

1. Fifthly, where a transferee pendente lite does not ask for leave to come on record, that would obviously be at his peril, and the suit may be improperly conducted by the plaintiff on record;

1. Sixthly, merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented;

vii. Seventhly, the sale transaction pendente lite is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act; and,

viii. Eighthly, a transferee pendente lite, being an assignee of interest in the property, as envisaged under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, can seek leave of the Court to come record on his own or at the instance of either party to the suit.

(Para 58)

H. Anjanappa V. A. Prabhakar

Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 121: (DoJ 29-01-2025)

2025 INSC 121 Click here to View Full Text of Judgment

2025 INSC 121 Download Supreme Court File.