Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mittar Singh And Another vs Bhajan Singh And Others on 1 March, 2011
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CM No. 27583-CII of 2010 in/and
Civil Revision No. 4077 of 2010
Date of decision: March 01, 2011
Mittar Singh and another
.. Petitioners
Vs.
Bhajan Singh and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gurnam Kaur Turka, Advocate
for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 12.
A.N. Jindal, J
This petition assails the order dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure P1)
passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rajpura declining to
implead Balbir Kumar and Seth Chand as defendants No.14 and 15 being
the subsequent vendees from defendants No.7 to 12 during the pendency of
the suit.
The factual background of the case is that the plaintiff filed a
suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming themselves to be the
owners of the suit property while tracing their rights in the same prior to
26.1.1950. Now they have stated that since the defendants No.7 to 12 have
sold the land measuring 11 kanals 18 marlas out of the suit land to Balbir
Kumar and Seth Chand on 17.10.2008, they are necessary parties to the suit.
The sale made during the pendency of the suit being wrong, illegal, null and
void is liable to be ignored as they are also hit by the principles of lis
pendens.
The defendants- respondents put in appearance and contested
the application on the ground that the subsequent purchasers pendente lite
are not necessary parties, however, they have admitted that the defendant
Nos. 7 to 12 have sold the land measuring 11 kanals 18 marlas, but it was
Civil Revision No. 4077 of 2010 -2-
***
further averred that Balbir Kumar and Seth Chand having purchased the property during the pendency of the suit have stepped into the shoes of the defendants, therefore, they are not a necessary parties.
The doctrine of lis pendens in my opinion is based on the principle that the person purchasing the property from the judgment debtor during the pendency of the suit has no independent right to the property, he having stepped into the shoes of the transferees is bound by the decree, if passed against him. No doubt, in an appropriate case, the court in order to avoid the multiplicity of the suits could permit the plaintiff to implead such subsequent transferees as party to the suit, but the present suit cannot be included in such class of cases as the suit was filed on 30.4.2002 and the application for impleading Balbir Kumar and Seth Chand as parties was filed in the year 2010. The Apex Court in case Usha Sinha vs. Dina Ram and others 2008 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 145 while considering the status of the lis pendens transferee observed as under :-
"It is thus settled law that a purchaser of suit property during the pendency of litigation has no right to resist or obstruct execution of decree passed by a competent Court. The doctrine of 'lis pendens' prohibits a party from dealing with the property which is the subject matter of suit. 'Lis pendens' itself is treated as constructive notice to a purchaser that he is bound by a decree to be entered in the pending suit. Rule 102, therefore, clarifies that there should not be resistance or obstruction by a transferee pendente lite. It declares that if the resistance is caused or obstruction is offered by a transferee pendente lite of the judgment debtor, he cannot seek benefit of Rule 98 or 100 of Order XXI."
Since the status of transferee pendente lite cannot be treated as of a stranger and is presumed to have constructive notice of lis pending in the court, therefore, he has to sink and swim together with the transferrers, as such, he is not a necessary party.
Civil Revision No. 4077 of 2010 -3-*** Taking the case from another angle, the suit is pending for the last nine years and the sale, if any, made by the defendants during the pendency of the suit, would suffer from the principles of lis pendens. The case is already at the arguments stage, therefore, I am not inclined to accept this application.
Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.
March 01, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge