C.R. No. 3636 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3636 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.05.2010 Darshan Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus Paramjeet Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present:- Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. VINOD K.SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose off Civil Revision No.3636 of 2010 and Civil Revision No.3637 of 2010 both titled Darshan Singh and another Vs. Paramjeet Singh and others, as common questions of law and fact are involved. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.3636 of 2010. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration, that the sale deed No.1828 dated 2.7.2003 is null and void ab initio, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring or mortgaging the suit property to anybody. During the pendency of the suit, in view of the transfer of the property in favour of defendant No.5, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was moved for impleading Amandeep Kaur (in CR No.3636 of 2010) and Gurmit Kaur (in CR No.3637 of 2010) as added defendant. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners C.R. No. 3636 of 2010 -2- challenged the impugned order by contending, that defendant was neither necessary nor proper party, as the transfer would be hit by principle of lis pendens. There can be no dispute with the proposition that transfer is governed by principle of lis pendens. However, it cannot be said that added defendant was not proper party, even though she may not be necessary party. The exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial Court does not call for any interference. It is interesting, that the added defendant, is not aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Court and it is the petitioners, who are challenging the impugned order, without impleading her as party, to the revision petition either as respondent or proforma respondent. In absence of added respondent, the revision itself is not maintainable. The exercise of power by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be arbitrary or not warranted in law, which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Even otherwise these revision petitions are not competent on behalf of the petitioners. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 26, 2010 R.S.