Supreme Court Sets Aside Karnataka HC Order Granting Leave To Subsequent Purchasers; Condemnation Of 586‑Day Delay Held Unjustified

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard consolidated civil appeals arising from orders of the Karnataka High Court which had condoned a delay of 586 days and granted leave to subsequent purchasers to prefer a first appeal against a decree for specific performance. The appeals challenged the High Court’s decision to allow two interlocutory applications (I.A. Nos. 1 & 3 of 2018) filed by the purchasers who had bought part of the suit property pendente lite.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned High Court order and held that the High Court committed an error in condoning the long and unexplained delay and in granting leave to appeal to the lis‑pendens purchasers. The Court observed that a stranger to the record could be permitted to appeal only if he was “aggrieved by” or “prejudicially affected” by the decree and that leave to appeal must be granted “judicially” and not as a matter of course. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The principles governing the grant of leave to appeal may be summarised as under: i. Sections 96 and 100 of the CPC respectively provide for preferring an appeal from an original decree or decree in appeal respectively; ii. 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; iv. 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; v. 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; vi. 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.” The Court further described the High Court’s reasoning as an “egregious error” in condoning delay.

Background The dispute arose from an agreement for sale dated 5.9.1995 by which the plaintiffs (now appellants) agreed to purchase two survey numbers totalling about 42 acres in Bagalur village from the original owner (Defendant No.1) through her power‑of‑attorney holder (Defendant No.2). The plaintiffs paid substantial consideration and the owner executed a confirmation deed acknowledging receipt of Rs.15 lakh. The plaintiffs sued for specific performance (O.S. No.458/2006) after alleged failure to evict unauthorised occupants; the trial court granted temporary injunction on 17.12.2003 and ultimately decreed specific performance on 16.9.2016. During the pendency of the suit, Defendant No.3 (vendor to the respondents) executed transfers of portions of the land to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in alleged breach of the injunction and in contravention of Section 52, Transfer of Property Act. The subsequent purchasers sought to be impleaded by an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC in 2007; the trial court rejected that application on 6.8.2014 and the order was not challenged and attained finality. After the decree in 2016 and dismissal of a separate appeal by Defendant No.3, the purchasers belatedly filed RFA No.1303/2018 in the High Court but delayed 586 days in doing so; the High Court condoned the delay and allowed leave on humanitarian and other grounds, imposing costs. The plaintiffs challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reviewed settled law on lis pendens, impleadment and leave to appeal by non‑parties, reiterating that a transferee pendente lite takes subject to the litigation and that leave to appeal under Sections 96/100 CPC is discretionary and must be confined to those truly prejudicially affected. The Court found no sufficient cause for the long delay, observed that the purchasers had earlier unsuccessfully sought impleadment which had attained finality, and held that they had not made out a case for leave. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court order and directed that if the purchasers alleged fraud by their vendor they were free to pursue appropriate remedies against him in accordance with law.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 121 (Civil Appeal Nos. 1180‑1183 of 2025) Case Title: H. Anjanappa & Ors. v. A. Prabhakar & Ors.; H. Anjanappa & Ors. v. Beena Anthony & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Senior Counsel (for the appellants / original plaintiffs) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gautam Narayan, Senior Counsel (for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 / subsequent purchasers)