Civil Revision No.3069 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3069 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 9, 2011 Nasib Kaur alias Beebo .....Petitioner v. Gurdev Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 12.3.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bathinda, vide which application filed by petitioner-plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as `the Code') and under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code for impleading Shamsher Singh son of Gurdit Singh as respondent no.5 and accordingly for amendment of plaint, has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against respondents-defendants to the effect that judgment and decree dated 12.3.1990 passed by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda, in Civil Suit No.419 dated 18.7.1989 titled as Inder Singh, Dal Singh sons of Dalip Singh v. Smt. Beebo daughter of Dalip Singh is illegal, null, void and is a result of fraud as some other lady in place of plaintiff was produced by Inder Singh and Dal Singh and obtained a consent decree and hence, the same is not binding upon her rights and that she continues to be the owner Civil Revision No.3069 of 2011(O&M) -2- to the extent of her share, i.e., 1/3rd share in the land, duly described in the plaint, with consequential relief of possession and injunction. Suit was contested by respondents-defendants no.1 to 3. However, the suit has not been contested by respondent-defendant no.4-Dal Singh. Plaintiff was apprehending that defendants intended to sell the land of her share as well, as Inder Singh and Dal Singh had already sold land of their share. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that during pendency of the suit, a portion of the land in dispute has been sold by respondents-defendants no.1 to 3, namely, Gurdev Kaur, Veerpal Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur to Shamsher Singh son of Gurdit Singh, vide sale deed dated 6.2.2009 and that the said fact has also not been disputed by respondents-defendants while filing reply to the application of petitioner-plaintiff and despite that her request was declined by learned trial Court by observing that the application could not be moved by petitioner- plaintiff, though the same could be moved by subsequent vendee. Law is well settled that plaintiff is dominus litis. He is master of his own case. Initially, petitioner-plaintiff filed suit against respondents- defendants and respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 were contesting the suit. There is no dispute that during the pendency of the suit, they created a third party right in favour of Shamsher Singh, as a part of the land has been sold by them by way of sale deed to Shamsher Singh son of Gurdit Singh and hence, she intends to implead him as a party and intends to challenge the sale deed executed in his favour during the pendency of the suit. In view of these facts, Shamsher Singh, vendee has become a necessary party to be impleaded in this case, as rights created in his favour during pendency of the suit by respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 by way of sale deed is also to be got set aside by petitioner-plaintiff. Hence, Shamsher Singh is a necessary party for proper adjudication of the suit and amendment sought is also necessary for just decision of the case. This Court in Gopal Singh v. Raghbir Singh and another, 2011(1) Civil Court Cases 130, has observed that if property has been sold during pendency of the suit, purchaser of the suit property from defendant becomes a necessary party because rights of purchaser would be affected by adjudication of the suit. It has also been observed that defendant having already sold the property during pendency of the suit may or may not defend Civil Revision No.3069 of 2011(O&M) -3- the suit properly because after creating third party rights, he is not left with any right, title or interest in the suit property. In Balbir Singh v Anokh Singh and others, 2003(2) PLR 329 as well, it was observed that where principle of lis pendence is applicable, there is no absolute rule of law that in such a case the subsequent transferee cannot become party to a litigation pending between the vendor of the same property and another person. In RKS Builders v. Bhupinder Kumar, 2001(2) PLR 804, this Court observed that the suit property transferred by defendant during pendency of the suit, the presence of the transferee is not only proper but necessary. Hence, in view of consistent stand taken by this Court on the point and in view of peculiar facts of this case, I am of the view that learned trial Court has committed illegality and material irregularity in declining the request of petitioner-plaintiff for impleading Shamsher Singh as a party and for making necessary amendment in the plaint, as the same is necessary for proper adjudication of this case. The present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. As a consequence thereof, application filed by petitioner-plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 and under Order VI Rule 17 is allowed. 9.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge