IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1004 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.2.2009 Dinesh Goyal and another ....Petitioners Versus Sandeep Batra and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for the petitioners. RAJESH BINDAL J The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 2.2.2009 passed by learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioners for being impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondents No.2 and 3 was allowed on the ground that the petitioners have purchased the property from respondents No.2 and 3 during the pendency of the suit. The suit was filed by respondent No.1 against respondents No.2 and 3 for permanent injunction. The claim was made by the petitioners to be impleaded as party to the suit on the ground that during the pendency of suit they had purchased the property in question. The learned Court below allowed the prayer of petitioners for being impleaded as defendants in the suit. However, as the petitioners had merely stepped into the shoes of respondents No.2 and 3 from whom they have purchased the property they were not granted any liberty to file fresh written statement and were only permitted to continue with the case from the stage, the order was passed. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that once they have been impleaded as party to the suit they should be permitted to file written statement putting their own stand on record is totally misconceived as otherwise also the principle of lis-pendise would have applied. It was a sale of property by respondents No.2 and 3/defendants in the suit to the petitioners during the pendency of the suit. In case the petitioners claim that they have been defrauded by respondents No.2 and 3 by not disclosing the factum of pending litigation regarding the suit property, they can have their remedies against their vendors otherwise also it was simply a suit for injunction. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 26.2.2009 JUDGE Reema