C.R.No.7253 of 2011 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7253 of 2011 Date of decision: 05.12.2011 Hina Jain and another ..Petitioners Versus Bakhsish Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for the petitioners. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court on an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) whereby applicant-respondent No.3 Varinder Singh Bains had been directed to be impleaded as party defendant in the suit filed by the petitioners vide order dated 30.3.2011, Annexure P.9 impugned in the present revision petition. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of suit land and they are not bound to execute registered sale deed of the said land in favour of respondent-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in pursuance of agreement to sell dated 8.11.2005 which stood cancelled and the earnest 1 C.R.No.7253 of 2011 money of Rs.24,00,000/- paid by respondent-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 stood forfeited. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents by filing separate written statements. The petitioners also filed replication. The defendant-respondents also filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 8.11.2005 against the petitioners with a direction to execute the sale deed and in the alternative a suit for recovery of Rs.68,00,000/-. Both the suits were consolidated. In the meantime, respondent No.3 moved an application dated 19.10.2010 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for being impleaded as a party in the suit. The application was contested by the petitioners by filing reply. The trial court vide impugned order dated 30.3.2011 allowed the said application. Hence this revision petition. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the applicant Varinder Singh Bains was subsequent vendee during the pendency of the suit and as such was neither necessary nor proper party for being impleaded as a defendant. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. 5. The trial court recorded that the plaintiffs Hina Jain and Vijay Kumar Jain had executed an agreement of sale dated 8.11.2005 for 36 kanals 12 marlas with defendants-Bakshish Singh and others @ Rs.19,25,000/- per killa. The defendants executed an agreement of sale dated 17.1.2006 for 54 kanals 18 marlas including the suit property with Santokh Singh. Said Santokh Singh further entered into an agreement dated 17.1.2006 regarding 10 killas 3 kanals 16 marlas with Kulwinder Singh and others who in turn executed agreement of sale dated 19.4.2006 with the applicant Varinder Singh Bains @ Rs.31,00,000/- per killa. This 2 C.R.No.7253 of 2011 included land which was subject matter of agreements dated 8.11.2005 and 17.1.2006 besides some other land. It further noticed that the applicant-respondent No.3 Varinder Singh Bains was in possession of the property in dispute and out of suit property he had purchased almost entire property leaving only few kanals of land. Accordingly, it was concluded that he had an interest in the suit property and would be affected by the decision of the suit. Holding him to be proper and necessary party in the litigation, application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code had been allowed with the following observations:- “4. Applicant wants his impleadment in Civil Suit No.331 of 9.10.2007 which has been clubbed with Civil Suit No.338 of 19.10.2007 titled as Bakhsish Singh and others v. Vijay Kumar and others, because both suits relate to specific performance of agreement to sell dated 8.11.2005. In suit No.331 claim of Hina Jain and others is that they are not bound to execute and get registered sale deed of land involved in both suits on the ground that agreement stands cancelled and has become void, illegal, inoperative having no binding effect against plaintiffs as defendants of suit titled as Hina Jain and another versus Bakhsish Singh, who are plaintiffs in suit titled as Bakhsish singh etc., versus Vijay Jain and another have failed to perform their part of the contract. Perusal of the record reveals that Heena Jain and others had entered into an agreement of sale dated 8.11.2005 for 36 kanals 12 marlas of land with Bakhsish Singh and others @ Rs.19,25,000/- per killa. They had further entered into an agreement to sell with Santokh Singh son of Sohan Singh resident of village Sarhala Khurd, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur regarding 54 kanals 18 marlas of land including land in dispute vide agreement to sell dated 8.11.2005 of Rs.19,25,000/- per killa vide agreement to sell dated 17.1.2006. Said Santokh Singh 3 C.R.No.7253 of 2011 had further entered into an agreement to sell dated 17.1.2006 regarding 10 killas, 3 kanals and 16 marlas of land with Kulwinder Singh son of Hajara Singh resident of village Rasulpur, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur, Sarabjit Singh son of Japal Singh, Baljinder Singh son of Ram Singh, Bhupinder Kumar, Harinder Kumar sons of Vishvatam Saroop, all residents of Old Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, Dsitrict Patiala @ Rs.26,50,000/- per killa and this included land subject matter of the above two agreements. Said Kulwinder Singh etc. have further entered into an agreement of sale with applicant Varinder Bains @ Rs.31,00,000/- per killa, which includes suit land also. Applicant has paid huge amount to Kulwinder Singh etc. Original agreement executed by Vijay Kumar etc., in favour of Bakhsish Singh and others shows they were put in possession of the property in dispute. Further perusal of various agreements, as referred to above, shows that at present applicant is in possession of property in dispute and out of suit property he has purchased almost entire property leaving only few kanals of land to be sold. Applicant is thus found to have interest in suit property as he has invested huge amount on the same. In a case reported as Smt. Vidya Devi v. Shruti Choudhry and others, 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 571 it has been held by our own Hon’ble High Court that if any party who can reasonably be affected with the pending litigation or decision therein is a necessary and proper party and it should be impleaded. In this case in given set of circumstances applicant will certainly be affected by decision of this suit. He can get adjudicated his claim in this very suit by filing counter claim. Either he will get the property in dispute through specific performance of agreements relied upon by him or in case his agreements are held to be void documents, the persons who have received the amount will be bound to return it to him. Certainly he will get a lien over the 4 C.R.No.7253 of 2011 balance sale consideration of the land in dispute, which is also agreed to be sold to him. In a case reported as Sumtibai and others v. Paras Finance Co. Manakanwar w/o Parasmal Chordia (D) and others – 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 524 it has been held that in a suit for specific performance filed by the purchaser, a third party can be impleaded in the suit where third party shows some semblance of title or interest in the property in dispute. Here applicant has the interest as jotted down above.” 6. No error or perversity could be pointed out in the aforesaid observations of the trial court warranting interference by this Court. The applicant had purchased the property from the successors of the defendants during the pendency of the suit, who vide agreement of sale dated 8.11.2005 had been given further rights to enter into any agreement with any third person. No doubt principle of lis pendens applies but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as noticed hereinbefore when the applicant had purchased almost the entire suit property after paying huge consideration to his vendor and is in possession of the suit property in case, the applicant is not allowed to contest the suit, his interest is likely to be jeopardized and it would lead to multiplicity of litigation. The allowing of the applicant respondent No.3 to contest this suit is in consonance with law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kumar Shaw and another v. Farida Khatoon and another, AIR 2005 SC 2209 wherein it had been held that an alienee pendente lite is bound by the final decree that may be passed in the suit and since under the doctrine of lis pendens a decree passed in the suit during the pendency of which transfer takes place binds the transferee, his application to be brought on record should ordinarily be allowed. Moreover, the counsel for plaintiff-petitioners was unable to 5 C.R.No.7253 of 2011 show that any prejudice has been caused by allowing the applicant to contest as defendant in the suit. 7. In view of the above, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. December 05, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 6