This court dismissed a civil revision challenging an order rejecting an amendment to the plaint to implead transferors of defendant No.2 and to claim mesne profits.
The orders quashing the application for amendment regarding impleading transferors and granting injunction were dismissed.
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 No.1789 of 2012 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.1789 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.03.2013
Jatinder Pal Kaur and another
……Petitioners
Versus
Ripudaman Singh and another
…….Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
A.N. Jindal, J.
The order dated 15.02.2012 (Annexure P-5), dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners (hereinafter referred as ‘the petitioners’) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, is under challenge.
By way of amendment, the petitioners want to challenge the transfer deed dated 21.05.2008 executed by defendant-respondent No.1 in favour of defendant-respondent No.2.
Since both the respondents knew about the litigation at the time of the aforesaid transfer deed, therefore, the said transaction should not have been entered into during the pendency of the suit. As such, there is no
Civil Revision No.1789 of 2012 (O&M)
2
requirement of amendment of the plaint, because if the suit of the petitioners succeeds, then the transfer, if any, made by respondent No.1 would suffer from the principle of lis pendence and be of no consequence.
As regards the plea with regard to grant of injunction qua the lease of disputed land, in this regard it is observed that in such situation, the petitioners could claim mesne profits and no amendment in the shape of filing the suit for recovery can be allowed at this stage.
No merits.
Dismissed.
19.03.2013 ajp
(A.N.Jindal) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether amendment is required to challenge a transfer deed executed during pendency of suit according to lis pendens.
Whether grant of injunction regarding lease of disputed land is permissible at this stage.
Jatinder Pal Kaur and another
Ripudaman Singh and another
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
