C.R. No. 6160 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6160 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.08.2010 Jagdish .... Petitioner Versus Teku @ Ranjeet and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No. 1, 4, 5 & 9 to 13 ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order dated 19.8.2009 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Gohana whereby learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner-plaintiff seeking impleadment of the purchaser from defendant No. 1. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff- petitioner filed a suit for joint possession by way of notional partition and for setting aside the sale dated 22.9.2004 being void and without legal necessity. In the suit petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC saying that defendant No. 1 has sold the suit property vide sale deed dated 20.1.2005, hence purchaser should be impleaded as defendant. Learned trial Court vide impugned judgment declined the prayer of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that C.R. No. 6160 of 2009 2 once sale deed in question has been challenged in a suit, hence, transferee in the suit should be impleaded. He further argued that without impleadment of the transferee lis between the parties can not be decided effectively. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that suit itself is not maintainable during the life of the Karta and son of the Karta has absolutely no right in the ancestral property. He further argued that application is hit by principle of lis pendense as sale deed is executed by defendant No. 1 during the pendency of the suit. In the opinion of this Court, transferee of the disputed property is proper party and every proper party should be brought on record to decide the lis and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. In view of this, impugned order is set aside. Application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for impleadment and consequential amendment is allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid within 10 days from today. (ALOK SINGH) 10.08.2010 JUDGE reena