CR No.7245 of 2009 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.7245 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 05.10.2010 **** Smt. Rampati . . . . Petitioner Vs. Satyavir Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.07.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narnaul by which an application filed by the plaintiff to delete the details of written statement filed by the defendant/petitioner which does not pertain to the particulars which are necessary to allege about the purchase of the property in dispute by her, during the pendency of the litigation. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 26.10.2004. During the pendency of the suit, property in dispute was purchased by the present petitioner. She moved an application under order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to be impeaded as a party in the suit as a subsequent vendee who had entered into the shoes of original vendor. The said application was allowed on 04.04.2007 but she was not allowed to file written statement. This led to the filing of revision petition before this Court, which was allowed on 17.02.2009, only to the extent that “newly added party shall file written statement stating such particulars as are necessary to her purchase”. The petitioner then filed written statement in which, besides making the CR No.7245 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - averments with regard to purchase of the property, she also contested the suit on other grounds including the locus standi of the plaintiff. Plaintiff then filed the application for deleting that part of the written statement which was not in consonance with the order passed by this Court on 17.02.2009 in Civil Revision No.2601 of 2007. The said application has been allowed by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner had only taken the plea with regard to her purchase of property with certain preliminary objections, besides that she has not averred a word on the merits of the rights of the plaintiff to file present suit on the strength of agreement to sell. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff submits that the written statement running in to various pages in which petitioner, who was only granted permission by this Court to raise plea with regard to the purchase of property by her, has contested the suit as if she is the vendor. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the view that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court because vide order dated 17.02.2009 this Court had granted only limited rights to the applicant/petitioner to file her written statement which was necessary qua the purchase of property by her. Petitioner, therefore, is not allowed to take any other plea beyond the permission granted by this Court otherwise it would be defeating the order of this Court which has not been challenged by the petitioner before the higher Court. In view thereof, the revision petition is found to be devoid of any merit and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 05, 2010 JUDGE Vivek