CR No.5950 of 2008 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.5950 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 23.11.2009 **** Gulab Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Jagdev Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of 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? **** Present: Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.09.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby, an application under Order 22 Rule 10 moved by the petitioner-plaintiff for impleadment of subsequent vendees pendente lite, has been dismissed. (2). Notice of motion was issued and as per the office report service is complete. However, no one appears on behalf of the respondents. (3). The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of land measuring 5 Kanals-19 Marlas, as descripted in the head-note of the plaint, situated within the Revenue estate of Village Phullanwal, CR No.5950 of 2008 - 2 - Tehsil & District Ludhiana. He has also sought a decree for permanent injunction. (4). The petitioner had earlier moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Gurjit Singh as party defendant No.5, to whom the suit land has been sold after filing of the above-stated suit. The application was dismissed against which the petitioner approached this Court in Civil Revision No.2402 of 2008. The said revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of the vendee pendente lite. The said application has now been dismissed vide the impugned order. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and keeping in view the fact that the sale transaction executed during the pendency of the suit is not in dispute, I am of the considered view that the impleadment of the subsequent vendee would avoid multiplicity of the litigation. In any case, the impleadment of the subsequent vendee shall cause no prejudice to the existing defendant-respondents. For the reasons afore- stated, the revision petition is allowed; impugned order dated 29.09.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, is hereby set aside and the application, moved by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of Gurjit Singh s/o Iqbal Singh – the subsequent vendee, is allowed and he is CR No.5950 of 2008 - 3 - ordered to be impleaded as defendant-respondent No.5. The trial Court shall proceed accordingly. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 23.11.2009 vishal shonkar