Allowed

Surender Singh & Anr. v. Manohar & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jan 2011CR/525/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw an application to implead transferees of the suit property and file a fresh application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The petition was dismissed without notice to respondents to ensure complete justice and avoid delay.

What did the court decide?

This petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside, and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a fresh one under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

Surender Singh & Anr. Vs Manohar & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No.525 of 2011(O&M) [ 1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

...

¶4

Civil Revision No.525 of 2011(O&M)

¶5

Decided on : January 25, 2011

¶6

Surender Singh and another

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Manohar and others

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

CORAM :

¶12

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

¶13

Present: Mr.Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

A.N.JINDAL, J.

¶15

The facts in the background of the case are that the suit for specific performance was filed on the basis of an agreement dated 14.1.2002 against the respondents – defendants (herein referred as the respondents) who were proceeded against exparte in the suit. However, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners – plaintiffs (herein referred as the petitioners) that after filing of the suit, they came to know that the defendants had already transferred the suit property by way of sale-deed dated 13.3.2006 i.e. before filing of the suit i.e, on 17.4.2006, therefore, they applied for impleadment of M/s Pizaan Properties Company Ltd and M/s Makshad Estate and Hardware Ltd, as parties to the suit.

¶16

Civil Revision No.525 of 2011(O&M) [ 2 ]

¶17

Since the respondents were not served before the Lower Court, therefore, they need not be served here.

¶18

Undoubtedly, so long as the sale-deeds are not challenged, the aforesaid two respondents could not be impleaded as parties. Since the sale came into existence prior to the filing of the suit, which came to the notice of the plaintiffs after filing of the suit, therefore, they were certainly necessary parties.

¶19

Faced with situation, counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present application with permission to file an amended application to implead (i) M/s Pizaan Properties Company Ltd and (ii) M/s Makshad Estate and Hardware Ltd, and also to challenge the sale-deeds in their favour.

¶20

Accordingly, this petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a fresh one under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶21

This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondents may move this court for recalling this order.

¶22

January 25, 2011 `gian'

¶23

( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE

Surender Singh & Anr. v. Manohar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Singh & Anr. v. Manohar & 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

Nirvail Singh and Ors. Vs Sadh Singh and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Sohan Lal

Inder Vs Ram Chander and Ors.

Paramjit Singh Vs Gurmeet Kaur & Ors.

Dalip Singh Cheema Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Jaswinder Kaur Vs Gurmit Singh