Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shree Kishan Somani vs Ram Nath And Ors. on 21 March, 1991
Equivalent citations: (1991)99PLR650
ORDER A.L. Bahri, J.
1. Vide this order two Civil Revision Petitions No. 3328 and 3329 of 1990 are being disposed of as the questions involved in both these cases are the same.
2. The petitioners Shree Kishan Somani and Vijay Shankar Somani filed two suits for the grant of injunction against Ram Nath and others defendants. During the pendency of the suits the defendants sold the properties to Pushpa & Parmod Kumar and on the application of the plaintiffs the subsequent vendees were ordered to be impleaded as parties as defendants under Order 22 Rule 10 of the C. P. C.
3. Subsequently, the added defendants were permitted to file written statements vide the impugned orders passed in the suits which are under challenge.
4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that such transferees could only continue the suits from the stage they were implead as parties and were not required to file written statement as the transferors had already filed written statements taking up the relevant pleas. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the decision of P.C. Pandit, J. in Bakhtawar Singh and Ors. v. Nirmal Singh, A.I.R. 1973 Punj. 448.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, also relying upon the above-said decision, has argued that the transferees could take up the pleas which were available to the transferors and it is only after the written statements are filed by the transferees that the question would arise if they had taken pleas which could not be taken up by the transferors Thus, he supports the impugned orders on this ground.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties 1 find that the approach of the trial Court was not correct. Under Order 22, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. the transferees were to continue the proceedings from the stage they were impleaded as parties. No doubt the transferors could amend the written statement by showing reasonable ground. Likewise the transferees could also move an application for taking fresh pleas which transferors had not taken in the earlier written statement. From that it cannot be said that the transferees had a right to file a written statement and thereafter the question to be gone into whether the pleas are the same which the transferors had taken. The impugned orders are set aside while accepting the revision petitions It is left to the transferees, if they so choose, to apply for the amendment of the written statement to take up fresh pleas, if permitted, according to law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear On April 22, 1991.