Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tilak Raj vs Hari Krishan And Another on 15 January, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CR No.224 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(227)
CR No.224 of 2014
Date of decision:15.01.2014.
Tilak Raj
......Petitioner
Versus
Hari Krishan and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 20.11.2013 whereby respondent No.2 was impleaded as a party in the suit filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.2 had no concern with the controversy in dispute. In fact, respondent No.2 had filed a suit against respondent No.1 that he should be restrained from dispossessing of his property. The said suit could be ordered to be clubbed with the suit filed by the petitioner. However, respondent No.2 could not be ordered to be impleaded as a party in the present suit filed by the petitioner seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 04.04.2011. Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.17 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.224 of 2014 -2-
Petitioner has filed suit against respondent No.1 for agreement to sell dated 04.04.2011. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.2 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to be impleaded as a defendant and contest the suit on the ground that respondent No.1 was habitual drunkard and was playing in the hands of the plaintiff. The suit had been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in collusion with respondent No.1- defendant.
Learned trial court, while allowing the application filed by respondent No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has held as under:-
"Heard on the application U/o 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the applicant Sukhjinder Kaur W/o Hari Kishan R/o Vill. Fatehpur Kothi, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur, as defendant and allow her to contest the present suit on merits moved by the applicant Sukhjinder Kaur. I am of the considered opinion that the defendant was the owner of the property measuring 5 kanals alongwith the house. The applicant alleged that the defendant was habitual drunkard and the defendant is playing in the hands of the plaintiff. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff collusively on the instructions of the defendant with the malafide intention to defeat the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed the suit Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.17 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.224 of 2014 -3- U/o 33 Rule 1 CPC against the defendant. The applicant alleged that the defendant neither entered into any agreement to sell with the plaintiff nor he received earnest money from him. The said house is the only house with the applicant to reside and in the absence of the defendant, she has right to defend, for the interest which she was having in the house in dispute. The interest of the applicant is involved in the present suit. The applicant has got prima facie case to be impleaded himself as a party to the suit and to contest the same. The case can be properly adjudicated by impleading the applicant Sukhjinder Kaur as party in the present case. Present application deserves merits and the same sands allowed. Reader of this court is directed to insert the name of applicant Sukhjinder Kaur as mentioned in the application U/o 1 Rule 10 CPC, in the head note of the suit filed by the plaintiff. Now to come up on 20.12.13 for filing written statement and reply."
Thus, the reasons given by the trial court while allowing the application are sound reasons. The plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell in question. In case, the plaintiff succeeds in proving the execution of the agreement to sell in question, respondent No.2 can put up her case that the specific performance of the same be not ordered on the ground taken Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.17 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.224 of 2014 -4- by her that her husband was a drunkard and was dispossessing all the property with a view to harm the interest of respondent No.1. In these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed. However, it is clarified that any observation made above, will have no bearing in the merits of the case.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 15, 2014.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.17 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document