C.R. No.8330 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.8330 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:21.12.2010 Girdhari Lal and others ...Petitioners Versus Inder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. ****** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala by which two applications filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 04.09.2008 and under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading them as defendants, have been dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. However, in appeal, the defendant, who had further sold the property in dispute to the petitioners, remained absent and consequently the First Appellate Court decreed the suit ex-parte. Admittedly, the original defendant has already preferred a Regular Second Appeal before this Court which has already been admitted and alienation of the suit property has been ordered to be stayed. During the subsistence of that Regular Second Appeal filed by the original defendant, present applications have been filed by the subsequent purchasers before the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala for the purpose of becoming a party and also for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 04.09.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Court below has committed an error in exercise of its jurisdiction while dismissing both the applications because the right in the property in dispute have vested in the present petitioners after sale of the suit property by the original defendant in the suit C.R. No.8330 of 2010 (O&M) -2- to them, who has not taken active interest in the appeal as a result of which it was decided ex-parte, though the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the available record from which it is found that both the applications are totally misconceived in view of the fact that the original defendant has already filed a Regular Second Appeal against the ex-parte judgment and decree which is admitted and alienation of the suit property has been stayed, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the present petitioners to say that the defendant is not taking keen interest in respect of the property in dispute which has been purchased by the petitioners. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioners, if so advised, may file an application, in accordance with law, to become a party in the Regular Second Appeal, pending in this Court. December 21, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE