Civil Revision No. 4545 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4545 of 2008 Date of decision: 9.3.2009 Vinod Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Dewan Chand ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for respondent S.D.ANAND, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 11.8.2008 vide which the learned Trial Judge declined the plea raised by the plaintiff- petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C. to obtain the leave of the Court to implead two named subsequent vendees in whose favour the already impleaded defendant had executed sale deed dated 5.11.2007 during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession, by way of specific performance, of property in suit on the basis of the agreement dated 19.1.2000. The plea, in the context, was that the impleaded defendant-respondent had agreed to sell the property to him for the indicated consideration. Also sought, as a consequential relief thereof, was the restraint of impleaded defendant-respondent from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner over the property in suit and also from alienating it to any one else in any manner. As already noticed, that property was sold by the impleaded Civil Revision No. 4545 of 2008 -2- **** defendant-respondent to the proposed subsequent vendees vide sale deed dated 5.11.2007. Learned Trial Court declined the plea aforementioned. In order to draw sustenance for the view aforementioned, the learned Trial Court noticed that the suit has been filed in the year 2003, issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties have been framed on 21.2.2004, the plaintiff-petitioner's evidence in affirmative had been closed on 20.2.2007 and that the evidence of the impleaded defendant-respondent had been closed on 7.1.2008. The fact that the case had come to be fixed for the rebuttal evidence also weighed with the learned Trial Court in negativing that plea. It also observed that the plea for impleadment/amendment was not sustainable as the subsequent vendees would be deemed to have been stepped into shows of impleaded defendant-respondent. The Court was, on that premise, reluctant to open the entire case. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the factum of sale deed dated 5.11.2007 being beyond the pale of controversy, it would have been legally appropriate for the Trial Court to implead the transferees pendente-lite. The view does not merit acceptance in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sanjay Verma Vs. Manik Roy and others 2007(1) Civil Court Cases 401 (S.C.) and Jagdish Chander and another Vs. Om Piari and others 2008(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 56. In the former authority, the following observations having relevant bearing on the controversy were made by the Apex Court:- “The mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with the property constituting the subject matter of the suit. The Section only postulates a condition that Civil Revision No. 4545 of 2008 -3- **** the alienation will in no manner affect the rights of the other party under nay decree which may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of the Court.” In Jagdish Chander's case (supra) too, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that a subsequent vendee( who purchased the property in suit) cannot be ordered to be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order cannot be faulted with on any valid score and petition being denuded of merit is ordered to be dismissed. March 09, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge