The Court modified a trial court order treating the petitioner as a proforma defendant and subsequent purchaser, clarifying his status as a co-sharer purchaser to allow him to contest the suit.
Modification of the impugned order to treat the petitioner as a contesting defendant and co-sharer; acceptance of his Written Statement.
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.
-1-
Civil Revision No.3511 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.3511 of 2018 Date of decision: 24.05.2018
Yogesh Kumar
.......Petitioner
versus
Anup Singh and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: - Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Through this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, limited prayer has been made for correction in impugned order dated 23.05.2017 (Annexure P-5) wrongly showing him proforma defendant and subsequent purchaser, in view of the fact that he had purchased the suit land much earlier, before filing of the suit.
Heard.
Since petitioner had purchased some part of the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 29.09.1993 from a co-sharer, namely, Pradeep Kumar around 14 years prior to filing of the suit on 12.09.2007. Therefore, impleading him as a subsequent purchaser by the trial Court in the impugned order dated 23.05.2017 (Annexure P-5) is a patent typographical mistake. Similarly, since the petitioner has interest in the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed aforesaid and wants to contest the Ravinder Singh 2018.05.28 11:15 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this documentsuit, therefore, he could not have been impleaded as a proforma defendant
-2-
Civil Revision No.3511 of 2018
creating his interest akin to the respondents-plaintiff. He ought to have been impleaded as a contesting defendant by the trial Court.
In view of the discussion above, the impugned order is modified to the effect that petitioner Yogesh Kumar would be treated as a contesting defendant and also not a subsequent purchaser, rather as a cosharer, being purchaser of some part of the suit property prior to filing of the suit.
As a natural corollary, the trial Court would accept the written statement of the petitioner, which he has undertaken to file on the very next date of hearing.
This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses which may be incurred by the respondents and also to avoid unnecessary delay in the adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondents may move this Court for recalling this order within one month from today.
(Ramendra Jain) Judge
May 24, 2018 R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No.
Ravinder Singh 2018.05.28 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Yogesh Kumar
Anup Singh and others
Ramendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
