9 83 P r 0 CeR N059370f2003 1 W IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CeReN005937of2003 Date ofDecisionl 04e0902009 1eChanan Singhson ofDeva Singhson ofLehna Singhresident of Mamdot Uttar Tehsil 8cDistrict Ferozepure 1 2eAssa Singhson ofBaggaSinghson ofKhushal Singh C 3eBalbir Singhson ofBaggaSinghson ofKhushal Singh 0 C0 4eBishan Singh 1 I 1 0 5eJoginderSingh 1IsonsofKharak Singhslo TejaSingh I 6 Suba Singh 1 1 Z 7eSukhvinder Singh 1 8eBalwinder Singhson ofSurjitSinghson ofJarmejSingh Petitioner nos2 to 8 a11are residents ofVUlageMamdot Hithar Tehsil District Ferozepur 08 eeeRevisionPetitioners 7 Versus Z le Amar Singh 1 1 2eResham Singh 1 1 3eChain Singh IsonsofJagirSinghslo Bahadur Singh 1 4eKaraj Singh 1 1 5eBajSingh 1 6eKulwant Singhson ofAmrik Singhson ofJagirSinghe Respondent Nosel to 6 aU are residents ofVUlageKaryal Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar throughtheir general power of attorneySwarn Singh SOIl of Udham Singh resident of Baggewala Tehsil Ferozepure 7eKashmir Kaur widow of Amrik Singhresident of Vmage Karyal42ehsil AjnalaDistrict Amritsare . Rashmi 2012.08.09 16: 31 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 84 0 Cell N005937 of2003 2 J 8eSmteParshino dlo MangalSinghson ofWadhawa Singh 9eKhushal 1 1 105ham IsonsofBoorha son ofDhanna 1 11Mouja 1 Respondent Nose8 to 11 a11are residents of VillageMamdot Tehsil 8cDistrict Ferozepur eeRespondents 0 C CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER I C Present2 Mr SandeepKhungerAdvocate I for the Z Mre Gulshan Sharma Advocate for Noel to 6e r Respondent No7 I Service ofrespondents No 8 to 11 dispensed with 08 theybeingproforma 7 SHAM SUNDER Je Z st R k R tl This 1S directed againstthe order dated 1332003 renderedby the Additional District JudgeFast Track Court9 Ferozepurvide which it dismissedthe application filed by Chanan Singh 6nowrevision petitionerlseekingpermission to institutean appealagainst the judgmentand decree dated 102000 passedby the Court of Civil Judge 5 7 6JuniorDivisionl Ferozepurin Civil Suit N05441 of 15101993 titled as Amar SinghandothersVs Smt Parshino and others 2 The facts in brief are that the applicants low revlslon were not a partyto the suit referredto above in the trial Court . Rashmi 2012.08.09 16: 31 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 85 0 CeR Noe59370f2003 3 70 1 They the SUlt land from Smt Parshino who was a party to the 1 aforesaid suit It was stated that theywere bound by the impugned judgment and decreedated1012000 rendered in the aforesaidsuit by the trial Court It was irther stated that their rightswere affected on account of passing of the aforesaidjudgment and decree It was 1 further statedthat an agreementto sell was executedby Smt Parshino 111 r4 favour of the revision petitioners on 1711993 It was further statedthat 0 C no doubt Smt Parshino executedthe saledeedson different datesin favour I C5 of the applicantsduringthe pendency of the suit yet she did not disclose I the factum of pendencyof the said lis It was 81rther stated that the Z applicants had no knowledge with regardto the pendency of the suit It was furtherstatedthattheapplicants beingbonafide ofthe land I lll disputeif were not allowed to institutethe appealagainstthejudgment 08 and decreedated 102000 renderedbythe trial Court manifest injustice would occasion to them 7 Z 3 No replyto the application was filed by the respondents However theycontestedtheapplication 4 Alter hearingthe Counsel for thepartiesand on goingthrough the record of the case the trial Court dismissedthe applicationvide the orderimpugned 5 Feelingaggrieved the instant revisionepetitionhas been Sled bytherevision petitioners 6 I haveheardthe Counsel for thepartiesand have gonethrough record ofthe case care8illy 7 The Counsel for the revision petitionerssubmitted that the order impugned1S illegal as the trial Court failed to take into . Rashmi 2012.08.09 16: 31 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 0 CR N059370f2003 4 1 considerationthe factum that since the rightsof the petitioners were prejudicially affected on account of the suit havingbeen decidedagainsttheir vendor theyhad a rightto challenge the decision of the trial Court byway of filingthe first appealHe further submittedthat even the Court below did not take into considerationthe factum that the grievance bythe petitioners was genuineand r not flimsy He furthersubmittedthatthe Court is required to adopta liberal 0 0 approach in such like cases so as to ensure that the endsofjusticeare sul C5 served He further submitted that the Court below adopteda hypere I technical approachin dismissing the application as a result whereof the Z cause ofjusticeinstead of beingadvanced was thwarted He also placed 1 reliance on State of Puniab Vs Amar Sitwh and another AIR 1974 I Supreme Court 994 in supportofhis contention 08 8 On the other hand the Counsel for the submitted thatthe transfermadein favour ofthe petitioners during 7 Z the pendencyof the suit by Smt Parshino their vendor was hit by the principlesof contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1861 Hlrther submittedthat as such thepleaofbonafide purchaser as envisaged by the provisionsof Section 41 of the Transfer of PropertyAct 1861 was not available to such transfereependenteite He 81rthersubmittedthat since the vendor of the applicants wasa partyto the suit theyhaving the propertyduringthependencythereof from her were bound by the decisionrendered therein by the trial Coun He hirthersubmittedthat if such like applications of the transfereespendente e lite are allowed then there will be mushrooming of the Courts with frivolouslitigationwithout any end to the same He also placedreliance on . Rashmi 2012.08.09 16: 31 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 87 0 0 CR N005937of2003 5 4Ve Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs Nabi Hassan Saheb and another 2005t11 Civil Court Cases 323 1SCl 9 After giving my consideration to the rival contentions advanced by the Counsel for the partiesin my considered opinionthe revision petitiondeservesto be dismissed for thereasons to be 1 recordedhereinafler Before enteringinto the real controversyit would be lll the fitness of thingsif the brief factsof the case which was filed bythe 0 0 plaintiffsnow againstSmt Parshino vendor ofthe applicants I C5 now revision and othersare narrated The plaintiffsfiled a suit I for declaration to the effect that theyhad become owners of the land as Z fullydetailed in the plaintby efflux of time as the mortgagecreated lll their favour was not redeemedwithin the periodof 30 years from the date tr when the cause of action accrued and as such the rightsof ownership 111 06 favour ofthe defendantsstood The said suit was contestedby Smt Parshino the vendor of the petitionersby way of W2 Z filinga wntten statement Shedeniedthat JagirSinghwas in possession of 6 Il the propertyin dispute It was also denied by her that the property 111 dispute was in favour of theplaintiffsby said JagirSingh On the other hand it was statedthat defendantNos2 to 4 were in possession of the suit land as tenants under her It was denied that the plaintiffswere successors in interest of JagirSingh UltimatelyCivil Suit N0544m1 of 15101993was decreedvide judgmentand decreedated 102000 against Smt Parshino the vendor of the petitioners and other defendants 10 It is in the aforesaid of the facts of the case that the controversy arising ln this revision petition 1S requiredto be . Rashmi 2012.08.09 16: 31 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 88 0 CeR No59370f2003 6 V1 determinedThere is no disputeabout theproposition that a personwho 1S nota partyto a decreeor order may with the leave of the Court preferan appealfrom such decree or order if he is either bound by the same or aggrieved againstit or his rightsare prejudicially affectedby it Whether theleaveshould be granted or not is a matter which lies in the discretion of theCourt of appeal No doubt that discretion is requiredto be exercised r on soundjudicialprinciplesandjudiciouslySimilar principleof law was 0 3 laid down in StateofPuniab Vs Amar Singhand anothers case tpral In I C5 the instant case the suit was filed on 15101993 in which Smt Parshino I thevendor ofthe petitioners was a party She contested Z the suit in which ultimately the decreewas passed on 102000 bythe trial Court Duringthependency of the suit the petitioners r the propertyin disputewith their eyeswide open The transfer I 08 madein their favour bySmt Parshino their vendor who was a partyto the suit was hit by the doctrineof lis pendensecontainedin Section 52 of the 7 Transfer of PropertyAct A transferee has no rightin the property by him duringthe pendency of the SUit He is boundbythejudgment and decree passedin the suit either in favour or againsthis vendor Such decision is resejudicata and binds not onlythe partiesto the lis but also the transfereespendentelitefrom them The pleaof bonafide purchaser 1S not available to such a transferee The sale deedsas is evident from the record had been executed on 17111993 1 1 301 1993 and 150993 by Smt Parshino in favour of the petitioners After having the property111 1993 duringthependencyof the suit to which Smt Parshino was a pany theysleptover the matter for a periodof 9 years It could not be imagined . Rashmi 2012.08.09 16: 31 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 0 0 CeR No59370f2003 7 thattheywere not aware ofthe pendency ofthe suit againsttheir vendor 111 the Court of law The transfersmade in favour of the duringthependencyof the suit that too at the very thresholdof the suit in the year 1993bySmt Parshino could not possiblybe said to be bonafide In case Smt Parshino had any grievanceshe could flle an 1 appealif otherwise under the provisionsof law The r application was filed by the petitionersjust with a view 0 C to complicate the matter and delaythe execution of the decree passed I C5 against their vendor I 11 In Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs Nabi Hassan Saheb and another Z 4supralrelied upon by the Counsel for the propeny was bythe transfereeduringthe pendencyof the suit without leave r ofthe Court Theymoved an application under Order l Rule 10 and under Oll Order 22 Rule 10 for their impleadmentas a partyto the suit That application was dismissedby the trial Court on the groundthatthe suit had 7 6 been pendingSlnce 1983 and primaacie the action of alienation did not Qm appear to be bonafide and thatit was an attempton the partofthe petitioner to complicate and delaythe pendingsuits Under these circumstances it was held that the order passedby the trial Court in exercise of its discretionin rejectingtheapplicationfor impleadment was correct 12 In Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs Jai Prakash Universitv and Others 2001161SCC 534 it was also observedby the Apex Court that where a partydoes not ask for leave he takesthe obvious risk that the suitmaynot be properlyconducted by the plaintiff on record yet he will bebound by theresult of thelitigationeven thoughhe is not at the hearing unless it 1S shown that the litigationwas not properly . Rashmi 2012.08.09 16: 31 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document m 90 0 Cll N059370f2003 8 e C conductedby the originalpartyor he colluded with the adversaryIn the instantcase thereis nothing on the record that Smt Parshino colluded with her adversaries and did notcontestthe suit properlyThere is not even a fleetingreference in the application Ul which the order impugned was passedor lll the groundsof revisionoetition that since Smt Parshino 1 colluded with the adversaries and did not contest the case in a proper manner the rightsof the petitionerswho were 0 C3 transferees stood prejudicially affected The observations I C5 rnadein DhurandharPrasad Singh Vs Jai Prakash Universitv and Others I supral and Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs Nabi Hassan Saheb and another Z supralare 81llyapplicable to the factsofthe instantcase 13 The order impugnedrendered by the Court below on the C aforesaidpointsbeingbased on the correct readingand due of i4 I 08 021 and law on thepoint does not suffer from any illegalitymaterial 5 or perversityand warrant no interference of this Court in its 7 Z revisionaljurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India The orderimpugned is thus liable to beupheld 14 For the reasons recorded above the revlSlon petitionbeing devoidofmerit must fail and the same is dismissed 02 1 SHAMSUNDERI ashh JUDGE c3 . Rashmi 2012.08.09 16: 31 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document