This revision petition sought to set aside an order impleading a third party purchaser in an ongoing suit. The High Court upheld the lower court's order, holding that the procedural safeguards protecting the plaintiff justified the substitution.
The civil revision was dismissed and the order impleading the third party purchaser was maintained.
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.
CR No.3287 of 2012(O&M)
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.3287 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: 03.09.2012
Rajinder Kumar son of Sh. Nanak Chand son of Sh. Sadhu Ram age 42 years, R/o Siwan Gate, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.
... Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Raj Rani w/o Sh. Sant Lal age 44 years R/o Mohalla Singho Wala, Dogran Gate, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Mr. Rishi Nijhawan, Advocate, for the respondent.
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
The revision is against the order impleading a third party purchaser pending suit. The application had been filed under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. The Court while ordering the substitution of the purchaser sufficiently protected the plaintiff by stating that the purchaser pending suit shall not be permitted to file any independent written statement and shall be bound by the pleadings already filed by his vendor. The Court has, therefore, taken care to ensure that the plaintiff is
CR No.3287 of 2012(O&M)
[2]
not put to any additional hardship by allowing for subsequent purchaser to come on record. There is no ground to interfere with the order. The order is maintained. The civil revision is dismissed.
3rd September, 2012 Rajan
( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the order impleading a third party purchaser pending to a suit filed under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC.
Whether the protection provided to the plaintiff by binding the substitute purchaser to vendor's pleadings justifies allowing the substitution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajinder Kumar
Smt. Raj Rani and others
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
