C.R. No.4371 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4371 of 2005 Date of Decision:- 14.02.2008 Pritam Kaur ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate vs. Satwant Kaur and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Sumeet Mahajan, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.8.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by the petitioner (Pritam Kaur) has been dismissed. The facts may be noticed briefly. Satwant Kaur-respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreements to sell dated 6.4.1983 and 5.10.1983 against respondents No.2 to 12. During the pendency of the above-stated suit, defendant- respondent No.3 and her son Mangal Singh are alleged to have entered into yet another agreement to sell with the petitioner in respect of property C.R. No.4371 of 2005 -2- measuring 15 square yards, on 14.3.1990. On the basis of the above-stated subsequent agreement to sell dated 14.3.1990, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against respondents No.3 and her son Mangal Singh. Both of them did not contest the said suit and were proceeded against ex parte. The said suit was accordingly decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide his judgment and decree dated 25.10.1997. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petitioner moved an application for her impleadment as party in the civil suit which the respondent No.1-plaintiff had already filed and was pending. The said application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court after observing that the subsequent agreement is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens; the suit is quite old and is lingering on since the year 1983; and the petitioner's claim is based on an agreement to sell only which does not confer any title upon her. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. While learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur & others., 1999(3) Civil Court Cases 175 (S.C.) and Dhanalakshmi & others vs. P.Mohan & others., 2007(1) Civil Court Cases 633 (S.C.) to contend that the petitioner, if not necessary is atleast a proper party and ought to have been impleaded, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff relies upon yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another, (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 191 to contend that the subsequent agreement to sell being without leave of the Court, such a C.R. No.4371 of 2005 -3- transferee can not, therefore, as his own right, seek his impleadment. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that in the light of the changed circumstances, the petitioner can be permitted to intervene in the pending suit from this stage onwards. The learned trial Court appears to have erred in observing that the petitioner is harping upon an agreement to sell only which does not confer any title. As noticed earlier, the petitioner has already got a civil court decree in her favour, may be in connivance and/or collusion with Tarsem Kaur and her son Mangal Singh. Similarly, if the petitioner is permitted to join the pending suit from this stage only, it will cause no delay in adjudication thereof. It is true that the subsequent 'agreement to sell' relied upon by the petitioner is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, however, in order to avoid multiplicity of the litigation, it will be in the interest of both the parties that the claim of the petitioner based upon the subsequent' agreement to sell' is also decided in the pending suit. This, however, shall not entitle the petitioner to file a written statement and/or to seek framing of additional issue(s). If the original defendants have yet not concluded their evidence, in that event, the petitioner may be permitted to lead evidence in support of the pleas taken in the written statement already filed by them. No delay would be, thus, caused in adjudication of the present suit. Needless to say that the respondent-plaintiff would be entitled to contend that since she was not party to the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner, the ex parte judgment and decree passed therein are not binding upon her. The impugned order dated 4.8.2005 passed by the learned trial C.R. No.4371 of 2005 -4- Court is accordingly modified to the extent above. Having regard to the fact that the civil suit was filed way back in the year 1983 and passing of the final judgment has remained stayed under the orders of this Court for a sufficient long period, the learned trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the proceedings as early as possible and preferably within six months. Disposed of. February 14, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE