Civil Revision No. 1409 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No. 1409 of 2009 Date of decision: 22.04.2009. Joginder Kaur Petitioners Versus Gurbachan Kaur and others ...Respondents 2. Civil Revision No. 1470 of 2009 Dalbir Singh and others Petitioners Versus Gurbachan Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Vikram Singh,Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondents. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. 1. These two petitions involve common question of law. 2. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the sale of the suit property came about during the pendency of the suit. There also Civil Revision No. 1409 of 2009 -2- **** is no controversy otherwise that the factum of pendency of this litigation had been notified to the subsequent vendees and, infact, stands noticed in the sale deed itself. The matter is concededly fixed presently for rebuttal evidence and arguments. It was in the light of all these facts that the learned Trial Judge declined the plaintiffs- petitioners' plea ( under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C.) for impleadment of the vendees as a party by observing that “the final decision of this case shall be automatically binding on the subsequent vendee.” 3. The view taken by the Apex Court in Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another 2004 (1) L.J.R. 621 and the law laid down by this Court in Lachhami Devi Vs. Pala Singh 1996 (1) R.R.R. 678 is fully supportive of the view obtained by the learned Trial Judge. 4. No law to the contrary was cited before this Court. 5. In the light thereof, the petitions are held to be denuded of merit and are ordered to be dismissed. April 22, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge