C.R. No. 2399 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2399 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 24, 2009 Phoolwati …..Petitioner Vs. Jamna and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff has filed this revision petition against the order dated November 29, 2007 passed by Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Kaithal, dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for impleading vendees Baljit, Raghubir, Smt. Kamla and Bimla daughters of Ram Pyari alleged daughter of Chandan. It was averred in the application that the plaintiff had come to learn that the land in dispute has C.R. No. 2399 of 2008 [2] been sold by Baljit etc. in favour of Jiya Lal as well as in favour of Manoj and Ramesh, sons of Mewa and Hukmi vide registered sale deed dated May 24, 2005 as well as sale deed dated October 12, 2004. It was claimed by the petitioner that she came to know about the said transfer made before the suit and during the pendency of the suit, as such vendees were necessary parties. The defendant- respondents had contested the application on the ground that the plaintiff was aware of the transfer of the land by sale deed dated October 12, 2004 before filing of the suit but she made no efforts to implead the transferee. It was also averred that in the year 2007, the petitioner- plaintiff had filed an application for amendment of the plaint when the factum of abovesaid sale deeds was known to the petitioner but no attempt was made to implead the vendees as respondents. It was claimed that litigation between plaintiff and Jamna has already been finalized till Supreme Court. The trial Court had dismissed the application observing that one of the sale deeds was within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of the filing of the suit and that after the conclusion of the evidence it was not appropriate to permit the plaintiff to fill in the gaps. The trial Court observed that the plaintiff wanted to delay the proceedings, as such he was not entitled to implead the subsequent vendees. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impleadment of the subsequent vendees is necessary for the just decision of the dispute pending inter-se the plaintiff and all the defendant- respondents. The plaintiff is not at all interested in delaying the proceedings. He contended that though by virtue of one sale deed executed prior to the filing C.R. No. 2399 of 2008 [3] of the suit the property had been transferred but it was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff- petitioner. Counsel for the respondent has referred to the earlier litigation regarding title of the property between Jamna and Ram Pyari. I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent and with the assistance of both the counsel gone through the pleas of the plaintiff- petitioner in her suit for declaration in which the decrees of civil Court dated march 21, 1997 in case of Ram Pyari Vs. Bhag Singh the order passed by the Appellate Court and the judgment in RSA No.4766 of 1999 decided on April 1, 2003 and order of SLP dated September 3, 2004 have been challenged and a declaration has been sought that all the said judgments and decrees are null and void and are not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Petitioner claims to be in joint possession of the property to the extent of half share. It is pertinent to observe here that in case the plaintiff is able to get a decree in her suit for declaration and is able to establish that the judgments and decrees mentioned in her plaint are null and void, she would certainly be entitled to claim ownership but it is pertinent to observe that two sale deeds have not been challenged. So far as sale deed dated May 24, 2005, which has come into existence during the pendency of the suit is concerned, it will govern the rights of the parties by the principle of lis pendence and is certainly subject to the result of the case. So far as sale deed dated October 12, 2004, which has come into existence before filing of the suit, is concerned, same having not been challenged, the vendees who have allegedly acquired right on the basis of the same cannot C.R. No. 2399 of 2008 [4] be impleaded as party especially when the entire evidence has been led and the case is fixed for final arguments. In view of the above circumstances, taking into consideration the previous litigation and the stage of the case, the impugned order dismissing the application of the plaintiff- petitioner to implead the vendees of sale deed dated October 12, 2004 does not warrant any interference. It will not be out of place to mention here that counsel for the petitioner has referred the judgments of Chaman Lal and others Vs. Rikhi Ram and others, 1990 (1) PLR 327, Ved Kumar Vs. Smt. Raj Rani Bhatti and others, 1993 (1) PLR 531 and Nahar Singh Vs. Kaku Ram, 1986 PLJ 67 laying down the principles that the Court has got power to implead party whose presence, in opinion of the Court is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in the proceedings. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition but in view of above discussion, it is held that parties sought to be added as defendant- respondents are neither necessary parties nor they are proper for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. In view of the above the petition is dismissed. July 24, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE