Partly allowed

Lalit Garg & Ors. v. Sweta Rani & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Mar 2013CR/1289/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition for the first appellant direction to implead him in a suit for specific performance, finding he acquired rights via a gift deed prior to the sale agreement. Other petitioners were rejected as unnecessary parties. Trial completion was directed within six months.

What did the court decide?

The trial Court is directed to implead the first revision petitioner Lalit Garg as a necessary party; trial to be completed within six months.

Lalit Garg & Ors. Vs Sweta Rani & Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

C.R. No.1289 of 2005

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.1289 of 2005

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: March 4, 2013

¶6

LALIT GARG & OTHERS ...APPELLANTS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SMT.SWETA RANI @ SAVITA & ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL.

¶10

Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No

¶11

PRESENT: MR.PRITAM SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR.RANJIT SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. VIJAY LATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.

¶12

M.JEYAPAUL, J.(ORAL)

¶13

The revision petitioners aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by them under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment in the suit filed by the plaintiff as against the original defendant seeking specific performance of agreement for sale on the basis of the alleged agreement for sale dated 11.8.1997 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff have come forward with the present revision.

¶14

Heard the submissions made on either side.

¶15

The 1^st petitioner Lalit Garg has demonstrated that he has got the suit property under the Gift Deed dated 13.5.1997, executed by his father Bharat Bhushan, the original defendant in the suit by producing a copy of the registered gift deed. It is on record that the agreement for sale was entered into by the original defendant Bharat Bhushan on 11.8.1997, almost 3 months after the said gift deed was executed by him in favour of

¶16

C.R. No.1289 of 2005

¶17

-2-

¶18

the 1^st revision petitioner. The other petitioners do have have any semblance of right over the suit property. In view of the above, the other petitioners cannot be considered as proper and necessary party to the suit for specific performance of agreement for sale.

¶19

Inasmuch, as the 1^st revision petitioner has demonstrated prima facie that he has got some right over the suit property under the deed which had come into existence about 3 months prior to the subject agreement for sale, I find that he is a proper and necessary party to the present suit.

¶20

In view of the above, setting aside the impugned order of the

¶21

trial Court in part, the plea of the 1^st revision petitioner Lalit Garg is accepted and the trial Court is directed to implead him as a proper and necessary party to the suit. The other revision petitioners are found not proper and necessary parties to the suit. Their plea for impleadment stands rejected

¶22

The revision is ordered accordingly.

¶23

As the suit has been instituted way back in the year 1998, the

¶24

trial Court is directed to complete the trial within 6 months from the date of

¶25

receipt of copy of this judgement.

¶26

March 4, 2013 Gulati

¶27

( M.JEYAPAUL ) JUDGE

Lalit Garg & Ors. v. Sweta Rani & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Garg & Ors. v. Sweta Rani & Anr.

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

(O&M) Urmila & Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Another

(O&M) State of Haryana Vs Chander Bhan.

R.S.Chhikara etc. Vs State of Hy.Etc.

State of Haryana & Anr. Vs Khub Ram & Anr.

State of Haryana & Anr. Vs Chander Prakash

Ganga Bishan and Anr. Vs Anil and Others