The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the impleadment of a purchaser of suit land during litigation. Holding that Order 22 Rule 10 CPC specifically allows such impleadment, the Court found no perversity in the lower court's order.
The revision petition was dismissed in limine.
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 Petition No.162 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision Petition No.162 of 2012 Date of decision : January 09, 2012
Krishna Devi and others
....Petitioners
versus
Sunita and another
....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate, for the petitioner
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 8.12.2011, Annexure P/3 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar thereby allowing application Annexure P/1 moved by respondent no. 2 Surender Singh alias Sunder Singh under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) and impleading him as party to the suit instituted by petitioners against Sat Narain sole defendant (since deceased and represented by respondent no. 1 as his legal representative).
Respondent no. 2 in his application alleged that he has
Civil Revision Petition No.162 of 2012
-2-
purchased the suit land from defendant vide sale deed dated 26.10.2006 and therefore, he be impleaded as party.
Plaintiffs in their reply Annexure P/2 alleged that respondent no. 2 – applicant had got the sale deed executed from the defendant during the pendency of the suit regarding which contempt of court proceeding is pending separately in the trial court.
Learned trial court vide order Annexure P/3 allowed the application Annexure P/1 moved by respondent no. 2 and ordered his impleadment as defendant. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
case file.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent no. 2 purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit in violation of temporary injunction and also sale in favour of respondent no. 2 is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and therefore, he is not necessary party to the suit. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarvinder Singh vs. Dalip Singh and others, 1996(5) Supreme Court Cases 539.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. In so far as infringement of temporary injunction is concerned, separate proceedings for the same are already pending and consequently, the impugned order or the instant order shall have no bearing on the same.
Civil Revision Petition No.162 of 2012
-3-
As far as contention whether respondent no. 2 is necessary party or not is concerned, of course, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, respondent no. 2 might not have been allowed to be impleaded as party to the suit. However, there is specific provision under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC whereby transferee pendente lite may, by leave of the court, be allowed to be impleaded as party. In view of this specific provision, respondent no. 2 has been rightly impleaded as party to the suit. Mentioning of wrong provision in the application would not be sufficient to dismiss the same. However, it may be added that respondent no. 2 has to continue with the defence taken by respondent no. 1 – defendant and cannot deviate from the same nor can take new plea.
Subject to aforesaid observations, I find that the impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
( L.N. Mittal ) January 09, 2012 Judge 'dalbir'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court commited jurisdictional error by impleading a purchaser pendente lite under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC.
Whether the revision petition attracts interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarvinder Singh vs. Dalip Singh and othersReferred¶22
Sarvinder Singh vs. Dalip Singh and others, 1996(5) Supreme Court Cases 539
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Krishna Devi and others
Sunita
another
L.N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
