Two civil revision petitions challenging the Trial Judge's refusal to implead subsequent vendees who purchased litigation property. The High Court held the petitions lacked merit as the vendees were bound by the final decision.
Petitions dismissed; refusal to implead vendees upheld; binding effect of decision on vendees ordered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No. 1409 of 2009
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. Civil Revision No. 1409 of 2009 Date of decision: 22.04.2009.
Joginder Kaur
Petitioners
Versus
Gurbachan Kaur and others
...Respondents
2. Civil Revision No. 1470 of 2009
Dalbir Singh and others
Petitioners
Versus
Gurbachan Kaur and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. Vikram Singh,Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondents.
S.D.ANAND, J.
suit property came about during the pendency of the suit. There also
Civil Revision No. 1409 of 2009
-2-
********
is no controversy otherwise that the factum of pendency of this litigation had been notified to the subsequent vendees and, infact, stands noticed in the sale deed itself. The matter is concededly fixed presently for rebuttal evidence and arguments. It was in the light of all these facts that the learned Trial Judge declined the plaintiffspetitioners' plea ( under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C.) for impleadment of the vendees as a party by observing that “the final decision of this case shall be automatically binding on the subsequent vendee.”
and the law laid down by this Court in Lachhami Devi Vs. Pala Singh 1996 (1) R.R.R. 678 is fully supportive of the view obtained by the learned Trial Judge.
April 22, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sale of suit property during litigation pending binds the vendees without impleadment?
Whether the plaintiffs could claim impleadment of subsequent vendees under CPC provisions?
Whether the trial judge correctly declined the plea for impleadment based on binding nature of final decision?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb and anotherReferred¶29
Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another 2004 (1) L.J.R. 621
Lachhami Devi Vs. Pala SinghRelied on¶29
Lachhami Devi Vs. Pala Singh 1996 (1) R.R.R. 678
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Joginder Kaur
Dalbir Singh
Gurbachan Kaur
S.D.ANAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
