Civil Revision No. 6914 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6914 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.9.2011 Amit Vashisht ... Petitioner Versus Rameshwar Narwal alias Naharwal and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. S. Bedi, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 to 8. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 23206-CII of 2011 Notice of the application. Mr.Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant/petitioner and submitted that he has no objection if the application is allowed. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The order dated 5.9.2011 is recalled and the main petition is taken up for re-hearing. Civil Revision No. 6914 of 2009 Civil Revision No. 6914 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Present revision petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order (Annexure P9) dated 26th September, 2009, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for substitution in place of defendants No.1 and 2 to the suit (Annexure P2) was dismissed. Briefly stated, respondents No.1 and 2 to the present petition had instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 16th January, 2002 in favour of Shivinder Naharwal and Mrs. Amrit Narwal is a nullity, inoperative and not binding upon Rameshwar Naharwal and Mrs. Suresh Bala plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 to the present petition. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that they were tenants under one Anoop Bansal and the property had been purchased by Shivinder Naharwal and Mrs. Amrit Narwal on contribution made by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit, Shivinder Naharwal and Mrs. Amrit Narwal-respondents No.3 and 4 i.e. defendants No.1 and 2 to the suit, had sold the property to the petitioner on the basis of which name of the petitioner has been recorded as owner in the record of rights maintained by Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as, ‘HUDA’). The petitioner had earlier filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a party. The said application was dismissed by the trial Judge by observing as under: “4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant as well Ld. Counsel for the respondent/plaintiffs and perused the case file carefully and I find that there is nothing on the Civil Revision No. 6914 of 2009 (O&M) 3 record to show that the suit property was sold by the respondents to the applicant vide registered sale deed dated 23.01.2004. Thus, the applicant cannot avail the remedy under Or.1 Rule 10. Moreover, the reliance can be placed on the judgment of our own High Court in Jagdish Chander Vs. Om Piari; 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 56, wherein it has been specifically held that subsequent vendee cannot be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC but may be allowed to continue or defend the suit under Or.22 Rule 10 of the CPC by stepping into the shoes of the party assigning property to him. In these premises the application for impleading the applicant as party U/O 1, R 10 CPC, 1908, is dismissed with a liberty avail the desired remedy under Or.22 Rule 10 of CPC, hence this application stands disposed of accordingly.” Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has stated that after his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed, another application (Annexure P7) was filed under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of leave of the Court to continue to defend the suit by the applicant on behalf of defendants No.1 and 2 to the suit, in whose shoes he had stepped into. Learned counsel has further stated that as is evident from a perusal of the memo of parties, defendants No.1 and 2, from whom the petitioner had purchased the property, are residents of United States of America Civil Revision No. 6914 of 2009 (O&M) 4 and they are not defending the suit. It is even alleged that after the property was sold to the petitioner and he was deprived of the considerable amount, thus, defendants No.1 and 2 to the suit being relations are in collusion with the plaintiffs and therefore, in case sale deed is set aside, it is the rights of the petitioner only which will be affected and he will be rendered roofless. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notice of motion on 26th November, 2009 had passed the following order: “It is, inter-alia, contended that the house in dispute was purchased by the petitioner after verifying the clear title of respondent Nos.3 & 4 from the office of the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The petitioner, on that premise, claims himself to be a bonafide purchaser and asserts his locus-standi for impleadment in the Civil Suit which, according to the petitioner is, prima-facie, a collusive suit between the family members. Notice of motion for 11.1.2010. Meanwhile, further proceedings before the trial Court shall remain stayed.” Mr. S.K.S. Bedi, Advocate, appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, to controvert the submissions made by Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, has submitted that there is an inter-se dispute between two brothers and therefore, the petitioner has no concern with the property, which was purchased by the members of the family in the name of elder brother. It is further submitted that the respondents being plaintiffs are Civil Revision No. 6914 of 2009 (O&M) 5 masters of the litigation and it is for them to choose the defendant. Furthermore, it is submitted that the petitioner being subsequent purchaser has stepped into the shoes of Shivinder Naharwal and Smt. Amrit Narwal, who had sold the property to the petitioner, during the pendency of litigation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that respondent No.3-Shivinder Naharwal and respondent No.4-Smt. Amrit Narwal, being defendants No.1 and 2 to the suit, are residing abroad and are not defending the suit vigorously and there is an allegation of collusion between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2. It will be in the interest of all, to avoid multiplicity of litigation due opportunity ought to be afforded to the petitioner to defend the suit as it will not cause any prejudice to respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs. Furthermore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is required to be heard and to project before the trial Court that the sale deed, executed in favour of respondents No.3 and 4 i.e. defendants No.1 and 2 to the suit, suffers from no infirmity. Hence, the present petition is accepted. Application (Annexure P7) is allowed and leave to appeal is granted to the petitioner to continue to defend the suit on behalf of defendants No.1 and 2 (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 27, 2011 “DK”