Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtu vs Suraj Mal & Others on 17 October, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR NO.606 OF 2010
DATE OF DECISION : 17th OCTOBER, 2012
Jagtu
.... Petitioner
Versus
Suraj Mal & others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for respondents.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Defendant-Jagtu has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 17.12.2009 Annexure P-7 passed by the trial court thereby allowing application Annexure P-5 moved by respondents/plaintiffs under order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC).
Plaintiffs have filed suit for possession of the suit land by preemption of sale thereof to the defendant-petitioner. In application Annexure P-5, plaintiffs have alleged that they have now come to know that defendant has sold the suit land to M/s. Intime Promotors Pvt. Ltd. (vendee). Accordingly the said vendee is sought to be added as defendant CR NO.606 OF 2010 -2- No.2 and consequential amendment relating to the said sale transaction, being hit by lis pendens, is sought to be made in plaint.
Defendant by filing reply Annexure P-6 controverted the averments of the plaintiffs although sale of the suit land by defendant to the aforesaid vendee was not disputed.
Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-7 has allowed application Annexure P-5 and has ordered that aforesaid vendee be added as defendant No.2 and consequential proposed amendment of plaint has also been allowed. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that vendee pendente lite is not necessary party to the suit and cannot be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The contention cannot be accepted. It is correct that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is not applicable to implead the transferee pendente lite. The appropriate provision is Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. However, mere mentioning of wrong provision of law in the application is not sufficient to dismiss the application. Under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, plaintiffs have right to implead the transferee pendente lite as party to the suit. Even if the transferee is not necessary party to the suit, the transferee is certainly proper party to the suit.
In addition to the aforesaid, it is surprising why the defendant has filed this revision petition. It is not explained as to what prejudice has been caused to the defendant by the impugned order. The defendant has not disputed the factum of sale of the suit land to the aforesaid vendee during CR NO.606 OF 2010 -3- pendency of the suit. Consequently the defendant is left with no right, title or interest in the suit land except to the extent of his liability if any towards vendee. Consequently the defendant should have no objection to impleadment of the vendee as party to the suit.
It is also worth mentioning that impleadment of the vendee as party to the suit is also necessary to protect the interest of the vendee. If the defendant-petitioner tomorrow colludes with plaintiffs, it may jeopardize the interest of the vendee who would be defeated by default because he would be bound by the result of the lis being transferee pendente lite. Moreover, if transferee is not impleaded as party to the suit, the transferee may also file objections in execution of the decree that may be passed in the suit.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity, much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court so as to call interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed.
17th October, 2012 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj' JUDGE