Civil Revision No. 7018 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7018 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 16th, 2011 Surender and others .... Petitioners Versus Gama Promoters Pvt. Limited and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Vikrant Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is a revision petition brought by the plaintiffs, Surender and others under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 4.6.2011 (Annexure P6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh, whereby application of respondent No. 9, M/s Garg Realtors Private Limited, has been allowed under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and it has been ordered to be impleaded as defendant No.9. Defendants No. 2 to 8 sold land measuring 135 kanals situated in the revenue estate of village Sarai Aurangabad, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar to defendant no.1. The plaintiffs have claimed that they are members of joint Hindu family with defendants No. 2 to 8 and the land in question was a coparcenary property in which the plaintiffs had Civil Revision No. 7018 of 2011 2 .. right as coparceners. They have claimed that defendants No. 2 to 8, who are fathers of the plaintiffs and karta of their respective families, have sold the land in order to satisfy their bad habits of drinking and gambling. They have challenged the right of defendants No. 2 to 8 to alienate the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, M/s Garg Realtors Private Limited applied for being impleaded as party to the suit under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, claiming that they have purchased land measuring 24 kanals 2 marlas out of the land in question from defendant no.1 vide sale deed dated 19.12.2005. The applicant has also claimed itself to be a bonafide purchaser of the suit land. According to it, defendant No.1 has already been proceeded against ex-parte and defendant no.1 is not in a position to safeguard the interest of the applicant. The applicant has claimed itself to be a necessary party to the suit. The right of the applicant to be impleaded as party to the suit has been denied in the reply filed to the application. It is claimed that no loss or injury would be caused to the applicant if it is not impleaded as party. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court has found the applicant to be a necessary party and has allowed the application vide order dated 4.6.2011. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed. I have heard Mr. Vikrant Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully. Civil Revision No. 7018 of 2011 3 .. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that M/s Garg Realtors Private Limited, who has purchased a portion of the suit land from respondent No.1 is not a necessary party to the suit. According to him, the petitioners have challenged the sale deed executed by defendants No. 2 to 8 in favour of defendant No.1 and the subsequent purchaser from defendant no.1 would be bound by the decree passed in the suit on account of principle of lis pendens. He has submitted that the suit can be decided in the absence of the applicant and, therefore, it is not a necessary party to the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners has sought support for his submission from two decisions of this court in Mahender Singh Jandiwale Vs. Chhaju Ram and another 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 556 and Mohan Shyam Vs. Munsidhar 2010(3) ICC 432. In the first case, the suit was brought for specific performance of the agreement of sale under which the vendor was to get sale deed registered in favour of daughter in law of the vendee. The daughter in law was held to be a stranger to the initially filed suit and was held not to be a necessary party to the suit. In the second case, the suit was for permanent injunction and the relief was sought against respondents No. 1 to 8. Respondent No.9 was neither proper nor necessary party of the suit and, consequently, the impugned order was set aside. It is true that the suit can be decided effectively in the absence of the applicant. However, a party can be added as defendant to a suit against the wishes of the plaintiff, even if it is a proper party. It is not necessary that the said applicant should show itself to be a necessary Civil Revision No. 7018 of 2011 4 .. party to the suit and if it is not shown that it is proper party, still it can be ordered to be impleaded as party to the suit against the wishes of the plaintiff. It is a case where defendant No.1 has been proceeded against ex-parte. This shows that defendant No.1 is not contesting the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the land in question. During the pendency of the suit, the applicant has purchased a part of the suit land from defendant No.1 and its rights would be affected by the decision taken in the suit. Impleading of M/s Garg Realtors Private Limited would at least avoid multiplicity of the suits. The question to be decided in the suit would not be changed by addition of M/s Garg Realtors Private Limited as one of the defendants in the suit. In both the reported cases, cited before me, the persons sought to be impleaded was a stranger. No relief was sought against it and the said person was not going to be affected by the decision made in the suit. However, the facts of the case before me are different. The decision would certainly affect the rights of the applicant in the land it has purchased. In these circumstances, M/s Garg Realtors Private Limited appear to be a proper party to the suit. Consequently, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 16th, 2011 som