Civil Revision No. 498 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 498 of 2009 Date of decision. 27.08.2009 Baljit Singh son of Mohinder Singh, village Tajoke Tehsil, Tappa District Barnala. ....... Petitioner Versus 1.Manjit Singh s/o Hardial @ Gurdial Singh, village Talwandi District Bathinda. 2.Gian Dass s/o Sadhu Dass, 3.Jagpal Singh s/o Sukhdev Singh, Both residents of village Longowal (Dulatpatti), District Sangrur. ... respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.R.V.S. Chug,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sherry V. Singla, Advocate for respondent no.1. Respondent nos.2 and 3 ex-parte. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 17.01.2009, (Annexure P-3), rendered by the Civil Revision No. 498 of 2009 --2-- Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo, vide which it dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, filed by Baljit Singh, subsequent vendee, for impleading himself as a party to the suit. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, against the defendants, restraining them from interfering into his possession over the suit property. 3. In the written statement, the defendants (now respondents) claimed that they were in possession of the property, in dispute. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court directed the parties, to maintain status-quo regarding possession over the property, in dispute. Civil Revision No. 498 of 2009 --3-- 5. During the pendency of the suit, an application was moved by the applicant(now revision-petitioner) claiming that he had purchased the property, in dispute, on 31.12.2007, and the defendants namely Gian Dass and Jagpal, had delivered the possession to him. It was further stated that, he being a necessary party, be impleaded. 6. In reply to the application, it was stated that the applicant, being a subsequent vendee, during the pendency of the lis, could not be impleaded as a party. It was further stated that the said application had been filed with malafide intention and in collusion with the defendants, already impleaded, as a party to the suit. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record, the trial Court, dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Civil Revision No. 498 of 2009 --4-- 8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the applicant-revision petitioner. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record carefully. 10. The Counsel for the revision- petitioner, submitted that his vendors being parties to the suit, colluded with the plaintiff, and, as such, the witnesses were not cross-examined by their Counsel. He further submitted that with a view to protect his interest, in the property, in dispute, the applicant was a necessary party. He further submitted that the applicant did not know that any lis was pending, between the plaintiff, and his vendors. He further submitted that the trial Court dismissed the application illegally. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent no.1, submitted that the application was filed by the applicant in collusion with the defendants, with a view Civil Revision No. 498 of 2009 --5-- to delay the proceedings, pending in the Court. He further submitted that the applicant had no locus standi to be impleaded as a party, as he has stepped into the shoes of his vendors, who are already a party to the lis and would be bound by the decision, which may be ultimately, rendered in the same. He further submitted that the trial Court was, thus, right in dismissing the application. 12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision- petition,deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Since the property, in dispute, was purchased by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit, he could not be said to be a bonafide purchaser, and such a sale is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial Court, was right in holding that the application had been moved by the Civil Revision No. 498 of 2009 --6-- applicant, in collusion with his vendors, who were already a party to the suit, as despite execution of the sale deed dated 31.12.2007, the defendants kept on attending the Court, and on 13.06.2008, even got the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses adjourned. It is further evident from the order dated 17.01.2009, that Mr. Hardev Singh, Advocate, on behalf of defendants, availed of four opportunities for the evidence of the defendants from 16.10.2008 to 14.12.2008. Despite being aware of the suit, pending in the Court, the applicant, did not file an application immediately after the execution of the sale deed in his favour, for being impleaded, as a party, and the same was filed after the evidence was closed by order. Not only this, the trial Court was also right, in coming to the conclusion, that if the alleged possession was delivered to the applicant by his vendors, in violation of the status- quo order passed by the Court, he was not Civil Revision No. 498 of 2009 --7-- required to be protected as that would amount to giving him premium, for violation of the order of the Court. The trial Court, in my opinion, was right in dismissing the application. 13. No doubt, the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, placed reliance on Balbir Singh v. Anokh Singh and others 2003(3) RCR (Civil) 201 and Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. v. Farida Khatoon and Anr. 2005(2) CCC 423 (SC) in support of his contention that the revision-petitioner was required to be impleaded, as a party. The facts of the aforesaid cases, are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In the aforesaid cases, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the delay in approaching the Court, stood sufficiently, properly and satisfactorily explained. It was, under these circumstances, that the transferee-pendente-lite was made a party to the appeal. In the instant case, as stated above, the applicant/revision- Civil Revision No. 498 of 2009 --8-- petitioner, did not approach the Court immediately, after the execution of the sale deed and only approached after the evidence of the defendants had been closed after affording them a reasonable opportunity of leading the same. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, from the aforesaid cases. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or perversity and, therefore, does not warrant any interference, of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. The parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 18.09.2009, at 10.00 am positively. August 27, 2009 ( Sham Sunder ) dinesh Judge