IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5044 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: February 14, 2011 Mohinder Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. Bikkar Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.P. Soi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents No.6 to 10. A.N. Jindal, J The short question to be decided in this petition against the order dated 25.5.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nakodar is, “whether the transferee from the defendant- respondent is a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit?” The trial court allowed the application moved by Harmail Singh son of Arjan Singh and Jasvir Kaur wife of Harmail Singh (now respondents No.9 and 10) who claimed themselves to be the subsequent vendees having purchased the land from Mangal Singh and Charanjit Singh defendants- respondents No.6 and 7. It was suit for declaration that the respondents Mohinder Singh and others are owners in possession of the land measuring 47 kanals 19 marlas situated in the area of village Hussainabad Tehsil Nakodar and the defendants No.1 and 3 (respondents No.1 and 3 in this petition) are owners in possession of the land measuring 27 kanals 3 marlas, defendant No.2 Sadhu Singh (respondent No.2 in this petition) is the owner in possession of land measuring 24 kanals 9 marlas, defendant No.5- Amarjit Singh (respondent No.5 in this petition) is the owner in possession of land measuring 24 kanals 9 marlas and defendants No.6 to 8 (respondents No.6 to 8 in this petition) are owners in possession of land measuring 29 kanals 18 marlas on the basis of the agreement of exchange dated 15.4.1992. As regards impleadment of party, the law is well settled that the plaintiff is a dominus litis of the suit and he could plead or ask for the relief Civil Revision No. 5044 of 2010 -2- *** against the party against whom he requires. Again, the subsequent vendee having purchased the property during the pendency of the suit being not necessary party cannot be impleaded in the suit. It has been observed in case Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another 2005 (1) Civil Court Cases 323 (SC) that ordinarily a transferee pendent lite without leave of the court cannot be impleaded as party. Further this view was approved by the Apex Court in case Sunil Gupta vs. Kiran Girhotra & Ors. 2007 (4) Civil Court Cases 813 wherein it was observed as under :- “A transferee of a property during the pendency of a proceeding is not a necessary party. Citations are necessary to be made to only of those who, inter alia claim through or under the Will or deny or dispute the execution thereof.” It has also been observed in case Kasturi v. Iyyamerumal & Ors. 2005 (1) Apex Court Judgments 640 (SC) that the plaintiff in the suit is the dominus litis. If he intends to take a calculated risk in the matter, the court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. Again in case Major P.T. Chaudhary v. Mohd. Abdul Bashir Khan & Ors. 2007 (5) RCR (Civil) 144 (AP) it is observed that the subsequent purchasers of suit property cannot be added as plaintiffs. They cannot be treated either as necessary or appropriate party to the injunction suit. In these circumstances, there is no escape from concluding that the subsequent transferee during the pendency of the suit being not necessary party cannot be impleaded as defendants. The court has not taken note of the aforesaid law on the point. As such, the order having become perverse needs to be reversed. Resultantly, I accept the petition, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application of the petitioner for impleading them as party to the suit. February 14, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge