CR No.5130 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5130 OF 2011 Date of decision: 5.12.2011 Smt.Harpreet Kaur and others ... Petitioners Versus Nirmal Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Varinder Singh, Advocate for the respondents. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The applicant-petitioners who are vendees from Gurmeet Singh son of Mela Singh, one of the co-sharers, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) with the averment that they had purchased the share of Gurmeet Singh on 20.4.2001 by registered sale deed and therefore they were entitled to be impleaded as respondents. The said application having been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 13.5.2011, they have filed the instant revision petition. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. Mela Singh was allotted House No.WB/166, 167, 168 situated in Gali Faqiran, Ali Mohalla, Jalandhar City, Jalandhar alongwith three shops bearing No.129/2, 1 CR No.5130 of 2011 129/130, 129/131 and 139/330 situated in Bazar Sheikhan.After his death, the property was entered in the name of Kaushaliya Devi and on her death, it was entered in the name of her legal heirs i.e. three sons and daughters of Mela Singh and Kaushaliya Devi. Nirmal Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner of 1/4th share in suit property No.WB/167, 168 and shops No.129/2 and 129/131 and also sought partition of the property. The suit was contested by the respondents alleging that Nirmal Singh was adopted by Tek Singh i.e. brother in law of Mela Singh. It was alleged that Pritam Singh was not the legal heir of Mela Singh. After the evidence, preliminary decree of partition was passed in favour of respondent No.1 i.e. Nirmal Singh vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.1998. Nirmal Singh filed application for final decree in which legal heirs of Satwant Kaur filed objection which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 13.4.2007. The legal heirs of Satwant Kaur filed Civil Revision against the said order which was dismissed on 31.5.2007. In the meantime, Raghbir Singh and his children being legal heirs of Satwant Kaur filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners of 1/6th share of the property in dispute. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners purchased a portion of the house bearing No.WB/166, 167, 168 situated in Gali Faqiran, Ali Mohalla Jalandhar measuring 3 marlas for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- vide sale deed dated 20.4.2001 from Gurmeet Singh son of Mela Singh i.e. share of Gurmeet Singh in joint property. After the petitioners became co-owners, they moved an application for impleading them as party i.e. respondent Nos. 4 to 11 in the said suit. The application was contested by the respondents. The trial court vide 2 CR No.5130 of 2011 order dated 13.5.2011 dismissed the said application. Hence the present revision petition. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, though the preliminary decree was passed on 14.12.1998 but in view of the sale in their favour, the petitioners were essential party as their rights were to be affected by passing of the final decree. He, however, submitted that the petitioners be allowed to contest the suit only on those rights and pleas which flow from the title of Gurmeet Singh and not on any other plea which was not available to him. He sought support from the decisions of the Apex Court in Amit Kumar Shaw and another v. Farida Khatoon and another, 2005(11) SCC 403 and Dhanailakshmi and others v. P.Mohan and others, 2007(10) SCC 719 and judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nima Kaur v. Surjit Singh and others, 1997(2) Civil Court Cases 528. 4. Opposing the prayer of the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the application was malafide and collusive between Gurmeet Singh and the applicant-petitioners. He submitted that the subsequent vendees were neither necessary nor proper parties and the trial court rightly dismissed the application. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the trial court was not right in declining the application filed by the applicant-petitioners. It was undisputed that the petitioners were vendees from Gurmeet Singh vide registered sale deed dated 20.4.2001. Once that was so, Gurmeet Singh had lost his interest in the proceedings and in case the applicants were not impleaded/ substituted their rights and interests would be jeopardized. Further, as per statement by counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners only wish 3 CR No.5130 of 2011 to agitate rights flowing from the title of Gurmeet Singh and restrict their pleas to those which were available to him only. Still further, the Apex Court in Amit Kumar Shaw’s case (supra) while interpreting Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code in para 14 noticed as under:- “14. An alienee pendent elite is bound by the final decree that may be passed in the suit. Such an alienee can be brought on record both under this rule as also under Order 1 Rule 10. Since under the doctrine of lis pendens a decree passed in the suit during the pendency of which a transfer is made binds the transferee, his application to be brought on record should ordinarily be allowed.” 6. In view of the above, the order of the trial court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the applicant- petitioners are allowed to be impleaded/substituted as respondents in the proceedings. However, it is clarified that the petitioners shall only be entitled to take pleas with regard to the rights flowing from the title of Gurmeet Singh and raise all the contentions which were available to him as per statement made by their counsel in this court. Before concluding, it has been brought to the notice that the proceedings for final decree are pending for a long time. Accordingly, it is directed that the trial court shall expedite the conclusion of these proceedings preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. December 5, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 4