Balbir Singh vs Baldev Singh

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—In this revision petition, petitioner-plaintiff challenges order dated 24.05.2014 (Annexure-P8) whereby the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Order XXII Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of subsequent vendees during the pendency of the suit, was allowed.

It is claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff that since the applicant-defendants, now (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) had knowledge of the injunction order restraining the defendant i.e. their vendor from alienating the suit property, they are not the bona fide purchasers and thus are not necessary parties before the Lower Court for adjudication of the matter in controversy, which relates to specific performance of the agreement dated 31.10.2008 against the original defendant (now respondent no. 1). Support has been sought from Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Others, ; Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors P. Ltd. and Others,

Injunction order dated 30.11.2009, which has been sought to be used against the respondent-defendant no. 1 to the prejudice of respondents no. 2 and 3 reveals that it was passed in the absence of original respondent-defendant Baldev Singh as he had been proceeded against ex parte on 14.11.2009. Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff though has urged that when the subsequent purchasers, i.e., respondents no. 2 and 3 came to know about the pendency of the proceedings qua the property purchased by them, they had moved an application for their impleadment as parties to such litigation against grant of which application, now challenge has been made by the petitioner-plaintiff. There is nothing to show that the vendor-defendant (now respondent no. 1) had any knowledge of the injunction order of 30.11.2009.

Petitioner-plaintiff is at liberty to establish during the course of proceedings before the Lower Court that respondents no. 2 and 3 impleaded subsequently vide the impugned order are not bona fide purchasers and thus sale in their favour by defendant no. 1 does not come in the way of enforcement of his rights under the agreement to sell, specific performance of which has been sought by him in this civil suit.

Notwithstanding the existence of provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as also the provisions of sections 10 and 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, without affording opportunity to the subsequent vendees, sale in their favour cannot be held to be void. Even when plea of the petitioner-plaintiff is considered, such subsequent sale will run subservient to the rights of the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit eventually to be determined after adjudication of the matter, which is to be done only after production of evidence by the parties. The pendente lite purchaser would be subject to the same legal rights and liabilities as pertain to his vendor, as may be eventually determined by the Lower Court.

At this stage, when the petitioner-plaintiff is not possessed with any material or evidence to show that the respondent-defendant was in knowledge of the injunction order dated 30.11.2009 and further that sale in favour of the respondent-defendants no. 2 and 3 does not entitle them the status of bona fide purchaser for consideration, the entire matter needs to be proved for which the plaintiff as also other stake-holders viz., respondent no. 1 as also respondents no. 2 and 3 will have opportunity to lead their evidence as per law.

Impleadment of subsequent vendees vide impugned order in the backdrop of facts and circumstances as discussed earlier, does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity.

Nothing expressed in this order shall affect the rights of the parties.

No merit.

Dismissed.