IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3628 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 11, 2010 Sunil Kumar and another. …Petitioners Versus Surjeet Singh and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondents. S.D. Anand, J. Mst. Hardei had filed a suit against the defendants (hereinafter referred to as the respondents), for a declaration with regard to the invalidity of the judgment and decree dated 17.11.1982. Also applied for was a decree for the invalidation of the jamabandi entries pertaining to the land in suit. Mst. Hardei also sought the consequential relief of joint possession of the land in suit to the extent of her share therein. The suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 03.05.2007. C.R. No. 3628 of 2008 In appeal filed by the respondents, the petitioners herein filed a plea for their impleadment, as a party, on an averment that they are transferees of the share of Mst. Hardei during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal was based upon a registered gift deed dated 24.01.2008 which Mst. Hardei was alleged to have executed in their favour in respect of the land owned by her in the area of Village Padha. She had also executed a release deed in favour of the applicant – Dharambir son of Jai Lal in respect of her agricultural holding in the area of Village Pabana. The plea did not find favour with the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. It was held, while negativing the plea raised by the petitioners, that the petitioners being successors in interest of Mst. Hardei (who was alleged to have executed the gift deed in favour of her real brother and the release deed in favour of her nephews). In obtaining that view, the learned Court also noticed the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which take care of such like eventualities. The reliance, in the context, was also placed upon 2000 (2) PLJ 439 – Naresh Kumar vs. Surinder Singh and others and 2007(1) Civil Court Cases, 162 (P&H) - Baldev Singh and others vs. Rajinder Kumar and others. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order declining their impleadment ought to be invalidated for the reason that the petitioners – applicants have acquired interest in that property; whereas the original 2 C.R. No. 3628 of 2008 plaintiff – Mst. Hardei has ceased to have an interest at the trial. The view obtained by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, is fully in accord with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Jaskirat Datwani vs. Vidyavati, 2002(1), Apex Court Judgments, 695. In that view of things, the judicial pronouncement of a Single Judge of this Court in Jagrup Singh and others vs. Naib Tehsildar (Sales) Sirsa and others, 1985 P.L.J. 342 would not hold the fort. In the case of Jaskirat Datwani (supra), the petitioner had applied for impleadment on an averment of having acquired interest in the land in suit during the pendency of the appeal. The Apex Court went as far as holding that if an owner sells property during the pendency of the suit which (suit) could be continued with the leave of the Court by or against the person upon whom such interest had devolved. However, if no such step was taken, the suit may be continued with the original party and the person, upon whom the interest had devolved, will be bound by the decree or order which comes to be granted in the suit, particularly when that party is in the know of the pendency of the trial. However, in the present case, the learned Apex Court noticed that the petitioner could not be described to be a bonafide transferee for consideration and without notice of the decree already granted by the learned Trial Court because there are closely related to the vendor. It 3 C.R. No. 3628 of 2008 was in that view of things that the learned Additional District Judge negatived the plea for impleadment. I find myself in complete agreement with the view aforementioned which is, in turn, supported by the Apex Court view in Jaskirat Datwani’s case (supra). In the light thereof, the petition is held to be devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed. The interim order dated 09.07.2008 passed by this Court shall stand vacated. The vacation of the stay order shall be intimated to the learned Trial Court forthwith. February 11, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4