IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 846 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 9, 2010 Gian Kaur. ….Petitioner Versus Angrej Singh and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. T.P.S. Tung, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. The petitioner herein applied for her impleadment, as a party, on an averment that she had purchased a part of the property in suit, during the pendency of the trial. The present being a suit for specific performance, cause of action had accrued only as between the original vendor and the vendee. A person who comes into the picture during the pendency of the trial cannot claim entitlement to intervene because the controversy has to be adjudicated upon as between the original vendor and the vendee. Whosoever acquires title to the property in suit, or a part thereof, during the pendency of the trial shall C.R. No. 846 of 2010 have to step into the shoes of his predecessor. It cannot justifiably plead for impleadment to be able to defend the suit on the pretence that the predecessor had ceased to have any interest in the property. These observations draw sustenance from RCR 1998(3) (Civil), 187 (P&H) – Ram Pat versus Maha Singh and RCR 2004(2) (Civil) 830 (P&H) – Nafe Singh vs. Krishna and others. The petition is held to be devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed. February 9, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2 C.R. No. 846 of 2010 3