Civil Revision No.3201 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 10, 2008. Mohinder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Smt.Shamsher Kaur & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.G.S.Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Y.P.Singla, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The application filed by respondents Shamsher Kaur and others under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint and for impleading the subsequent vendee has been allowed by the trial Court. Petitioner Mohinder Singh has impugned the said order through the present revision petition. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed the above-referred application on the ground that after filing of the suit, the petitioner in Civil Revision No.3201 of 2007 : 2 : connivance with others has alienated huge part of the suit property by means of different sale deeds and thus in order to get effective relief, the said sale deeds are also required to be challenged and thus the respondents wanted to amend the plaint to raise a challenge to the said sale deeds and as other necessary consequences, also wanted to implead the subsequent vendees. The respondent-plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration claiming themselves to be the owners of land measuring 7 kanals out of the suit property pleading that the suit property had fallen to the hands of petitioner from his father Gurcharan Singh and is an ancestral property with which the respondents are coparceners. The sale, which is being now sought to be challenged by filing an amended plaint, is an event which has taken place subsequently. It is rightly noticed by the trial court that challenge to the sale deed is not going to change the basic nature of the relief claimed in the case as respondents have claimed themselves to be the owners of the suit property. Once the challenge to the sale deeds is considered valid, then as a necessary consequence thereof, the subsequent vendees, who are likely to be effected in this case, may require to be impleaded as proper parties. Mr.G.S.Bhatia appearing for the petitioner has referred to the cases of Mehar Singh Vs. Hardeep Kaur & Ors. 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 234 to say that the person in whose favour alienation is executed is not a necessary party. In this regard, he has also placed reliance on the cases of Sarvinder Singh Vs. Dalip Singh & Ors., 1997(Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 50, Sanjay Verma Vs. Manik Roy and Ors., 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 408 and S.G.Kannappan Vs. S.Murugesan Civil Revision No.3201 of 2007 : 3 : & Anr., 2002(3) Civil Court Cases 666. On the other hand, reference is made to the case of Dhanalakshmi & Ors. Vs. P.Mohan & Ors., 2007(1) Civil Court Cases 633, where purchasers were allowed to be impleaded as defendants in the suit being a necessary and a proper party. Reliance is also placed on the case of Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon & Anr. 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 423, where it is observed that application of transferee pendente lite for impleading him a party in a suit should ordinarily be allowed. In case of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 976, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where property sold by one of the respondents, then purchasers are necessary party to the suit. Similar view is taken in the case of Rajaram Rao Patil Vs. Marcel De Pieade Braganza & Ors., 2006(1) Civil Court Cases 317. Reference is also made to the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. K.K.Modi & Ors. 2006(3) Civil Court Cases 57 to submit that amendment to the pleadings should be liberally allowed and rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and the power of amendment should be exercised in larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the court. No doubt, the doctrine of lis pendence in all such cases is available, which has been taken into consideration to say that the subsequent purchasers need not be impleaded, but in order to bring finality to the lis, it would be appropriate to permit the subsequent vendees as they can be and are considered necessary and proper parties. The support in this regard can be had from the observations Civil Revision No.3201 of 2007 : 4 : made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhanalakshmi (supra). It was again observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw (supra) that application of transferee pendente lite for impleading should ordinarily be allowed. As is observed in this case, alienee pendente lite is bound by the final decree that may be passed in the suit. Such an alienee can be brought on record under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Though the transferee may not be entitled as a right to be made a party to the suit in view of doctrine of lis pendence, but the court still has a discretion to make him a party. Where the rights of a transferee pendente lite are substantial and not just peripheral, then he can be added as a party being a proper party. In the case of Rajaram Rao Patil, the Bombay High Court viewed that where defendant agreed to sell the property to the proposed parties, they would be necessary party or in any case proper parties for all questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Since the property in dispute has been sold during the pendency of the suit, the court has rightly exercised discretion to implead the subsequent vendee as a party, which would be essential to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Any order that would be passed in the suit would ultimately affect the right of the subsequent vendee. Incidentally, the subsequent vendees, who have been directed to be impleaded have not come forward to challenge this order. The petitioner, who is a defendant, would not be put to any prejudice if the subsequent vendees are allowed to be impleaded as a party and to contest the suit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Civil Revision No.3201 of 2007 : 5 : the subsequent vendees can be taken to be proper parties, if not necessary parties and accordingly the impugned order would not call for any interference, it being just and proper. Revision is dismissed. April 10,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE