Civil Revision No.5720 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5720 of 2011 Date of Decision:20.09.2011 Lakhbir Singh ......Petitioner Versus Raj Kumari and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The compendium of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Raj Kumari wife of Ram Lal- respondent No.1-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 16.11.2006, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Jarnail Singh son of Bhan Singh-respondent No.2-defendant(for short “the defendant”) from alienating the suit land, in any manner. 2. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner-Lakhbir Singh son of Waryam Singh, moved an application(Annexure P-1) under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, for impleading him as a party(defendant) in the main suit, inter alia, pleading that defendant-Jarnail Singh had sold some portion of the land in dispute to him, by means of subsequent sale-deed dated 09.06.2010, for a valuable consideration. The mutation and khasra girdawri entries were claimed to have been incorporated in pursuance of the sale-deed. The petitioner claimed that since, he has subsequently purchased some portion of the land in question, by Civil Revision No.5720 of 2011 2 virtue of sale-deed dated 09.06.2010, so, he is necessary party and is liable to be impleaded as a defendant in the main suit. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner filed the application(Annexure P-1), for impleading him as a party (defendant) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in this regard. 3. The plaintiff refuted the prayer of the petitioner and filed the reply (Annexure P-2), inter alia, pleading certain legal objections of maintainability of the application, cause of action and locus standi etc. of the petitioner. It was claimed by her that the alienation of the suit land was stayed by the High Court, which was in the knowledge of the defendant. Assuming for the sake of arguments, that the suit land has subsequently been purchased by him, in that eventuality, the indicated sale-deed, is illegal, null and void, being executed in violation of the stay order dated 07.02.2007 granted by the High Court. According to the plaintiff, the application filed by the petitioner on the basis of illegal and void sale-deed, cannot be accepted at this belated stage. The same was claimed to have been filed in order to delay the disposal of the case, as Jarnail Singh- defendant was not legally competent to sell any part of the suit land during the pendency of the suit. It will not be out of place to mention here that the plaintiff has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The trial Court dismissed the application(Annexure P-1) of the petitioner, for impleading him as a party(defendant) in the main suit, through the medium of impugned order dated 25.08.2011. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred the present revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition. Civil Revision No.5720 of 2011 3 7. As is evident from the record that, plaintiff-Raj Kumari filed the suit on 05.02.2007 for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 16.11.2006, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land, in any manner. On the contrary, the petitioner claimed that he purchased some portion out of the suit land vide subsequent sale-deed dated 09.06.2010. It is not a matter of dispute that this Court has already stayed the alienation of the suit property, by way of order dated 07.02.2007, much prior to the alleged sale-deed dated 09.06.2010 of the petitioner. 8. That means, the petitioner has allegedly purchased some portion of the land during the pendency of the civil suit and despite stay of alienation by this Court. Since, he has entered and stepped into the shoes of his vendor, so, he will sink and swim with his vendor in litigation. Thus, the petitioner is a subsequent transferee pendente lite. In that eventuality, a transferee pendente lite has no independent legal right to be impleaded as a party(defendant) in the main suit, to contest the claim of the plaintiff. He can only watch the interest of his vendor in litigation, from whom, he has purchased the land during the pendency of the suit, as contemplated under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and doctrine of lis pendens is fully attracted in this case, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Dhanna Singh Versus Baljinder Kaur 1998(1) PLR 706 and by this Court in case Jaswinder Singh Versus Sohan Singh and others 2005(1) PLR 593, wherein it was observed that “the subsequent purchaser does not get any right to be impleaded as a party”. Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith that he is a necessary party to be impleaded as a defendant in the main suit. This matter is not res integra and is well settled. 9. An identical question came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Sanjay Verma Versus Manik Roy and others, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1332. Having interpreted the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, it was ruled(para 12) as under:- Civil Revision No.5720 of 2011 4 “The principles specified in Section 52 of the T.P.Act are in accordance with equity, good conscience or justice because they rest upon an equitable and just foundation that it will be impossible to bring an action or suit to a successful termination if alienations are permitted to prevail. A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree just as much as he was a party to the suit. The principle of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the T.P.Act being a principle of public policy, no question of good faith or bona fide arises. The principle underlying Section 52 is that a litigating party is exempted from taking notice of a title acquired during the pendency of the litigation. The mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with the property constituting the subject-matter of the suit. The Section only postulates a condition that the alienation will in no manner affect the rights of the other party under any decree which may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of the Court.” 10. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto-sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances, as the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Moreover, the plaintiff is Dominus litus of her case and she cannot possibly be forced to implead, or to prosecute a person against whom, she is not aggrieved, in any manner. Above all, such law breakers, who subsequently purchase the property during the pendency and with an eye to frustrate the civil consequences in the suit, cannot possibly be encouraged in this relevant connection. 11. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the valid grounds in the impugned order in this respect. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the Civil Revision No.5720 of 2011 5 case. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the suit, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. 13. Needless to mention that, nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case during the course of trial of the suit, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present revision petition only. September 20, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE