The Court dismissed a revision petition seeking to quash an order declining the petitioner's impleadment in a civil suit. The Court held that the plaintiff is not compelled to implead a person they do not wish to.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.5979 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.9.2010
Kartar Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Malkit Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr.R.S.Bains, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.K.Arora, Advocate for the caveator/respondent No.1.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.5.2010 by which his application for being impleaded as a party has been declined. He claims to be a bona fide purchaser of the suit property which is subject-matter of the civil suit initiated by respondent No.1 seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell regarding this very property in his favour.
The suit property was concededly purchased by the petitioner subsequent to the filing of the present suit and, therefore, the sale would be hit by the principle of lis pendens if other requirements are fulfilled by the said respondent. Respondent No.1, who is plaintiff in the suit, is also dominus litus and he cannot be compelled to implead a person to whom he does not wish. There is
C.R.No.5979 of 2010 (O&M) -2-
thus no legal infirmity in the impugned order and the revision petition
being without any merit is dismissed.
It is for the parties to independently establish their cause of action at an appropriate stage.
20.9.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss
Kartar Singh
Malkit Singh
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
