Civil Revision No. 4201 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4201 of 2009 Date of decision : May 17, 2010 Gopal Singh ....Petitioner versus Raghbir Singh and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Gopal Singh has filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 21.5.2009, Annexure P/5, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana thereby dismissing application Annexure P/3 moved by petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) for being impleaded as party to the suit instituted by Raghbir Singh respondent no. 1 against Sohan Singh respondent no. 2. Plaintiff-respondent no. 1 has filed suit against defendant- respondent no. 2 alleging that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property in view of agreement dated 28.4.1995 for purchase thereof from Gurnam Singh. Civil Revision No. 4201 of 2009 -2- Defendant Sohan Singh in his written statement, inter alia, pleaded that he had purchased the suit property from Gurnam Singh vide sale deed dated 2.9.1994 and became owner in possession thereof and during the pendency of the instant suit, defendant has sold the suit property to Gopal Singh petitioner vide sale deed dated 10.7.2007. The petitioner moved application Annexure P/3 for being impleaded as party to the suit on the ground that he has purchased the suit property from the defendant during the pendency of the suit and therefore, petitioner is necessary and proper party to the suit. The application was resisted by plaintiff-respondent no. 1 by filing reply Annexure P/4. It was pleaded that plaintiff is not seeking any relief against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the decree to be passed in the suit shall be binding on the petitioner as well because of doctrine of lis-pendens and therefore, the petitioner is interested party in the suit because his rights shall be effected by the decision in the suit. It is also contended that defendant Sohan Singh having sold the suit property to the petitioner is no more interested in defending the suit properly. On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent no. 1 vehemently contended that sale deed dated 2.9.1994 set up by defendant is forged and fabricated as stamp papers for the same were not issued by the Treasury and alleged signatures of Gurnam Singh thereon have been found Civil Revision No. 4201 of 2009 -3- to be forged. It was also contended that temporary injunction has been granted by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff against which defendant Sohan Singh has preferred appeal. It was also argued that plaintiff does not claim any relief against the petitioner and the plaintiff being dominus litis is not bound to implead the petitioner as party to the suit. It was submitted that plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction only against Sohan Singh from whom the plaintiff apprehended threat to his possession over the suit property. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. In so far as contentions on behalf of the plaintiff regarding merits of the suit are concerned, the same are completely irrelevant for adjudication of the controversy involved in the instant revision petition. The rival claims of the parties are yet to be adjudicated upon by the trial court in accordance with law. At this stage, suffice to notice that the petitioner claims to be purchaser of the suit property from the defendant during the pendency of the suit. Consequently, under Order 22Rule 10 CPC, the suit may, with the leave of the court, be continued by or against transferee. In my considered opinion, the petitioner is certainly necessary and proper party to the suit because rights of the petitioner would be effected by the adjudication of the suit. The defendant having sold suit property to the petitioner during the pendency of the suit may or may not defend the suit properly because the defendant is not left with any right, title or interest in the suit property. In these circumstances, it is all the more necessary to implead the petitioner as party to the suit. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to raise any new plea except the plea if any arising out of the sale by defendant in Civil Revision No. 4201 of 2009 -4- favour of the petitioner. The petitioner shall otherwise be bound by the pleadings of the defendant Sohan Singh. In view of the aforesaid discussion, impugned order of the trial court cannot be sustained. Revision petition is accordingly allowed and impugned order dated 21.5.2009, Annexure P/5, passed by the trial court is set aside and application Annexure P/3 moved by the petitioner is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be impleaded as defendant no. 2 to the suit, subject to the observation made in the preceding paragraph. ( L.N. Mittal ) May 17, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'