Civil Revision No. 2340 of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2340 of 1999 Date of Order: 27.08.2009 Rajwati ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Santa & others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Lokesh K.Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). By way of this revision petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 26.04.1999, passed by the Additional District Judge (II), Faridabad, dismissing her application for being impleaded as a party. Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner has purchased a part of the suit land vide sale deed dated 21.05.1997. Respondents no.1 to 7 have not denied the compromise but have only asserted that as money has not been paid, they would not abide by the compromise. It is submitted that in view of these facts, the first appellate court should have impleaded the petitioner as a party, as the petitioner's prayer falls within the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Despite service, no one is present on behalf of the respondents. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The merits of the petitioner's assertion apart as an application for recording a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure is pending adjudication, and the petitioner has purchased a part of the suit property, the first appellate court should have applied the Civil Revision No. 2340 of 1999 2 provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code while considering the petitioner's prayer for being impleaded as a party. The court below lost sight of the fact that a vendee pendente lite, though bound by the fate of his vendor, is entitled to protect his interest against any collusion between the parties. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed, the order dated 26.04.1999 is set aside. The Additional District Judge (II), Faridabad, is directed to consider and decide the petitioner's application, afresh as also the application pending Under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, forthwith. August 27, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE