Dismissed

Ram Kumar v. Kultar Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2010CR/4858/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court's dismissal of a second application to implead the petitioner in a suit relating to specific performance and registration of a sale deed, holding it barred by Order 23 Rule 1 (4) CPC.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed in limine holding the second application barred by order 23 rule 1 (4) CPC.

Ram Kumar Vs Kultar Singh and Ors. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C. R. No. 4858 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 4858 of 2010 Date of Decision : August 04, 2010

¶5

Ram Kumar

¶6

.... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. Kultar Singh .... Respondent

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. R. S. Tacoria, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶13

Ram Kumar has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 10.05.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-1 moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC), for becoming party to the suit instituted by respondent no.1 against respondents no.2 to 4.

¶14

The petitioner alleged in the application that he had earlier also moved a similar application, which was dismissed as not pressed, but now

¶15

C. R. No. 4858 of 2010

¶16

¶17

the petitioner wants to get the application decided on merits. The petitioner claimed an agreement to sell executed in his favour by defendants no.1 and 2, for specific performance whereof he has already filed a suit. Defendant no.3 has also filed a separate suit for specific performance of another agreement to sell relating to same property allegedly executed by defendants no.1 and 2. Respondent no.1-plaintiff has filed the instant suit for directing defendants no.1 and 2 to get registered the sale deed dated 24.03.2003, which had already been executed by them in favour of the plaintiff regarding the suit property.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶19

case file.

¶20

The instant second application moved by the petitioner for being impleaded as party to the suit is barred because his earlier application for the same relief was dismissed as not pressed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the second application is not barred by res judicata as held by Kerala High Court in the case of Soman Nair vs. State of Kerala reported as 2008 (4) Civil Court Cases 120 (Kerala) . The contention cannot be accepted because in that case, Panchayat was to be impleaded as party, but without issuing statutory notice to Panchayat, suit against Panchayat could not be maintained and therefore, in that case, first application was dismissed as not pressed and second application for impleading Panchayat was made after issuing mandatory statutory notice.

¶21

C. R. No. 4858 of 2010

¶22

¶23

In these circumstances, the second application was held to be not barred by res judicata. In the instant case, however, the petitioner got his first application dismissed as not pressed and has now moved the second application without there being any new circumstance. Consequently, the second application moved by the petitioner is barred by Order 23 Rule 1 (4) CPC.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has now come to know that defendants no.1 and 2 do not own any other property except the suit property. However, it is beyond comprehension as to how this circumstance is relevant for impleading the petitioner as party to the suit. Irrespective of whether defendants no.1 and 2 have only the suit property or also have other properties, merits of the suit instituted by the petitioner or the instant suit or the suit instituted by defendant no.3 would not be affected in any manner, when the three suits relate to the suit property only.

¶25

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court warranting interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶26

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶27

August 04, 2010 monika

¶28

C. R. No. 4858 of 2010 4

Ram Kumar v. Kultar Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar v. Kultar Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thakur Singh Vs State of Punjab

Makhan Singh Vs Harmeet Singh

Joginder Singh Vs Subhash Chander & Anr.

Jaswinder Singh and Ors. Vs Gurcharan Kaur and Ors.

Kartar Singh & Ors. Vs Amarjeet Singh & Ors.

Sneh Lata Vs Pushpa Rani and Ors.