Allowed

Kanshi Ram v. Dharam Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Dec 2009CR/7021/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order dismissing an application to implead subsequent vendees in an injunction suit. The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the impugned order and permitting the impleading of the vendees due to threats against the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 3.10.2008 set aside. Applications under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 allowed.

Kanshi Ram Vs Dharam Singh and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CR No.7021 of 2008

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 7021 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: December 03, 2009

¶5

Kanshi Ram

¶6

...........Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Dharam Singh

¶9

..........Respondent

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina

¶11

Present: Mr.Gauttam Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Johan Kumar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3, 6 and 7

¶12

Sabina, J. (oral)

¶13

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 3.10.2008 (Annexure P3) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Safidon.

¶14

Plaintiff-Kanshi Ram filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit propoerty. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the subsequent vendees Ranbir

¶15

¶16

CR No.7021 of 2008

¶17

Singh, Randhir Singh and Dayalo as a party. Vide the impugned order dated 3.10.2008, the said application was dismissed. Hence,the present revision petition.

¶18

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

¶19

Plaintiff is the Master of his case. Plaintiff has specifically averred in the application that, during the pendency of the suit, the defendants had executed the sale deed in favour of Ranbir Singh, Randhir Singh and Dayalo. The said vendees had also started threatening the plaintiff to dispossess him from the suit land. In these circumstances, the vendees were liable to be impleaded as a party in the suit. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court is erroneous while dismissing the application. Plaintiff has a cause of action against the vendees and consequently, they are liable to be impleaded as a party in the suit.

¶20

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.10.2008 is set aside. Consequently, the applications filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 read wth Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed.

¶21

( Sabina ) Judge

¶22

December 03, 2009

¶23

arya

Kanshi Ram v. Dharam Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanshi Ram v. Dharam Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmeet Singh Pehalwan Vs Preeti @ Manpreet Kaur

Khem Singh Vs Chiranjiv Singh

Bela Singh and Anr. Vs Renu Garg

Kulwant Kaur and Another Vs Tara Wati and Others

Baljit Kaur etc. Vs Darshana Rani etc.

M/S Shreyans Spinning Mills Vs M/S Nathu Ram Gursharan Dass and Ors.