Delhi High Court – Orders
Amit Jain vs Renu Joshi Jain & Ors on 16 April, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 938/2023, CM APPL. 61140/2023 (stay), CM APPL.
69595/2024 (to place on record the subsequent event and documents),
CM APPL. 2194/2025 (for interim protection)
AMIT JAIN .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Aayushi Jain and Ms. Shallu Jain,
Advocates.
versus
RENU JOSHI JAIN & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rohit Oberoi and Mr. Umang
Bhatia, Advocates.
Mr. Vivek Srivastava, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 16.04.2026
CM APPL. 69786/2024 (under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC)
1. Application under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC‘) has been
filed on behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Ghanshyam Dass.
2. It is submitted that the accompanying RFA has been filed against the
Judgment dated 25.03.2023 whereby the Civil Suit No. 476/2022 filed by
the Plaintiff/Appellant for Partition, has been rejected and the Application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by the Respondent No. 1, has been
allowed.
3. It is submitted that the Applicant, Mr. Ghanshyam Dass is the
subsequent purchaser of the Suit Property by virtue of the Sale Deed dated
01.11.2024. After the execution of the Sale Deed, the Respondent No. 1 is
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:02:39
left with no right, title and interest in the Suit Property or the subject matter
of the present proceedings. Therefore, the Applicant being a subsequent
transferee, be substituted in place of the Respondent No. 1, in the present
proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent has filed a Reply objecting to the
substitution Application.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant has himself pointed out the Order
dated 28.11.2023 whereby on the first date, this Court has observed that the
rights of the subsequent purchaser shall be subject to the outcome of the
present Appeal. Learned counsel further referred to the Order dated
15.01.2025 wherein the Applicant has been restrained along with the
Respondents in creating any third party rights.
6. It is submitted that once an Injunction has been granted against the
Applicant, he has every right to be substituted in place of the Respondents.
7. The Application is contested by the Appellant, who had filed a Reply
to the Application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. It is stated that under Order
1 Rule 10 CPC, a person may be added as a party if he ought to have been
made as Plaintiff or Defendant and not so joined or when, without his
presence, the questions in the Suit, cannot be completely decided. In the
present Case, the Suit before the learned Trial Court in case revived, can be
appropriately adjudicated in the absence of the Applicant as it is only the
Respondent No. 1, who can sufficiently depose on the merits of the dispute
pertaining to the subject property.
8. Reliance is placed on Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. vs. Farida Khatoon &
Anr., decided on 13.04.2005, AIR 2005 SC 2209.
9. It is further submitted that the alleged Sale Deed dated 01.11.2024
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:02:39
executed by the Respondent No. 1 in favour of Applicant, is in violation of
the principle “pending a litigation nothing new should be introduced”, as
condemned under Section 52 of the Transfer of the Property Act (for short
‘TPA’). It provides that the pendente lite, neither the party to the litigation,
in which any right to immovable property is in question, can alienate or
otherwise deal with the such property so as to affect his appointment. This
provision is based on equity and goods conscience and is intended to protect
the right of the parties against the alienations, by their opponent during the
pendency of the Suit. In order to constitute a lis pendens, the following
elements must be present:
i. There must be a suit or proceeding pending in a Court of
competent jurisdiction.
ii. The suit or proceeding must not be collusive.
iii. The litigation must be in respect of immovable property.
iv. There must be a transfer of or otherwise dealing with the
property in dispute by any party to the litigation.
v. Such transfer must affect the rights of the other party that my
ultimately accrue under the terms of the decree or order.
10. It is further submitted that the transferee is not entitled to be made a
party to the Suit and no discretion be exercised in his favour and it is against
the interest of the parties. The Applicant herein, cannot depose on the factual
averments, circumstances and the grounds raised in the Suit before the
learned Trial Court.
11. The present Application by the subsequent purchaser, is not bona fide
and it requires consideration as to whether he is a bona fide purchaser,
before he is added as a party to the present Appeal.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:02:39
12. It is claimed that the substitution in place of the original Respondent,
as sought by the Applicant, is not only perverse but arbitrary and a
calculative move to prolong the proceedings, thereby causing grave harm to
the rights of the Applicant.
13. Reliance is also placed on R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah & Ors. vs.
Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (D) by LRs and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1658 wherein it
was observed that a person who purchased the Property should made
necessary efforts to find out with regard to the Property, whether the title or
interest of the person from whom he is making the purchase, was in actual
possession of the Property. The Apex Court after considering the effect of
Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, as well as, Section 52 of the TPA, held
that the subsequent purchaser has to be aware before he purchases the Suit
Property.
14. It is further asserted that the Applicant is in collusion with the
Respondent No. 1. The Appellant and his family are consistently threatening
the Appellant to hand over the possession of the Suit Property to the
Applicant. Such conduct shows that the Applicant is not a bona fide
purchaser.
15. The doctrine of lis pendens is well settled for which reliance is also
placed on Smt. Ram Peary and others vs. Gauri and others, AIR 1978 AII
318.
16. It is further asserted that the Applicant has no locus standi to seek
substitution in place of the Respondent No. 1, Ms. Renu Joshi Jain as she is
the only necessary and proper party to depose about the subject matter of the
present Suit. The Application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC is not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:02:39
Submissions heard and the record perused.
17. The Applicant as per his own submissions, has purchased the Suit
Property vide Sale Deed dated 01.11.2024.
18. The Suit for Partition had been filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant in
which specific defence was taken by the Respondent/Defendant No. 1 that
she became the owner of the property by virtue of a Gift Deed dated
28.02.2013. She has further asserted that the mother-in-law, Smt. Hans Lata
Jain, had executed a Will dated 24.05.2014 in favour of her husband, Mr.
Pankaj Jain, who is the brother of the Plaintiff/Appellant. Mr. Pankaj Jain
has died on 25.11.2020 and by virtue of succession as well, she has inherited
the Property her husband.
19. It is also pertinent to note that the entire Suit Property was measuring
397 sq. yards, out of which 120 has been purchased by the Applicant. It is
claimed that the remaining portion of the subject Suit Property has been
purchased by other subsequent purchasers. It is quite evident that there can
be no substitution of the Applicant of the Respondent No. 1 in the given
scenario.
20. It is also pertinent to refer to Order dated 28.11.2023 that the
subsequent purchaser shall be bound by the outcome of the present Appeal.
The Applicant may have chosen to purchase the property subsequently, on
01.11.2024 but as already noted, he is bound by the doctrine of lis pendens
and shall be bound by the outcome of this Appeal.
21. In any case, because it is not a case of purchase of entire Suit
Property, there can be no substitution of the Applicant in place of the
Respondent No. 1.
22. The Application is hereby, dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:02:39
CM APPL. 24560/2026 (for impleadment)
23. Application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC has
been filed on behalf of the Applicant, M/s Sachdeva Industries, to be
impleaded as a party.
24. It is submitted that the Applicant was a tenant in the Suit Property
bearing No.1/421, Lane No. 5, Friends Colony Industrial Area, New Delhi-
110032 admeasuring 240 sq. yards, under the deceased mother, Smt. Hans
Lata Jain of the parties to the accompanying Appeal till 2021. The Applicant
has been forcefully, illegally dispossessed by the Appellant, despite he being
in a settled and continuous possession of the Suit Property. It is submitted
that the Applicant was a tenant and had taken premises on Lease in the year
1970 and has been in possession throughout. He had been paying his rent
from time to time.
25. On 23.11.2021, the Applicant came to know that the Appellant’s
cousin and 6-7 persons at his behest, forcibly entered into the factory
premises, broke the locks of the gate and were cutting the machinery of the
Applicant, which was lying inside the premises. The Staff/guard of the
Applicant, had informed the Petitioner of such happening and thereafter, the
Police was informed about the Legal acts. The Police came to the premises,
after being called several times.
26. The acts constitute illegal trespass and forcible dispossession, without
due process of law. FIR No. 404/2021 under Section 454/448/380/506/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been registered at Police Station GTB
Enclave, Delhi against the Appellant and his cousins.
27. Left with no option against the forcible and illegal dispossession, the
Applicant filed a Civil Suit No. 127/2022 tilted M/s Sachdeva Industries vs.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:02:39
Amit Jain & Anr., seeking Recovery of Possession under Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Permanent Injunction against the Appellant
and the Respondents, which is pending adjudication before the learned Trial
Court.
28. Written Statements have been filed by the Respondent No. 1, as well
as, the Appellant. The Suit is pending adjudication. The Application under
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, was dismissed vide Order dated 21.12.2022.
29. Sometimes, in the year 2025, the Applicant came to know that the
Respondent No. 1 has sold the Property to one Mr. Ghanshyam Dass vide
Sale Deed dated 01.11.2024, despite the stay granted by the learned Trial
Court and making a categorical statement.
30. The Applicant seeks impleadment as he apprehends that the Petitioner
and the Respondent No. 1 and the subsequent purchaser, now wish to enter
into the shoes of the Respondent No. 1. They may settle the matter amongst
themselves, which may cause prejudice to the rights of the Applicant.
31. It is, therefore, submitted that the Applicant is a necessary party to the
present Appeal and therefore, he be permitted to be impleaded as a party.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
32. It is an interesting Application filed by the Plaintiff/tenant, who has
been allegedly dispossessed by the Appellant way back in 2021 in respect of
which, not only civil remedy but also criminal process has been initiated.
How a tenant is a necessary and proper party in a dispute between the two
owners, is difficult to comprehend. Whatever are the protections for the
tenant, must be sought in his own Suit, rather than meddling in the Suit
between the two parties herein, who are both claiming to be the owners.
Clearly, it is an Application, which is mala fide and is without basis.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:02:39
33. The Application is hereby, dismissed and disposed of accordingly,
subject to cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court
Advocates’ Welfare Trust.
RFA 938/2023
34. Be listed for arguments on 24.09.2026.
35. Written Submissions be filed by both the parties within eight weeks,
failing which, the same shall be accepted subject to cost of Rs.25,000/-, to
be deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocates’ Welfare Trust.
36. Interim order, if any, to continue till the next date of hearing.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
APRIL 16, 2026/RS
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:02:39
