Chandan Singh and Others vs Parsa and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 15.5.1995 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Jind, dismissing the application filed by the Petitioners under Order 1, Rule 10 and Order 22, Rule 10 of the CPC for their impleadment as Defendants in the suit.

By placing reliance on a decision of the Orissa High Court in Sri Nagannath Mahaprabhu v. Pravat Chandra Chatterjee and Ors. AIR 1992 Orissa 47, learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued that the learned Senior Sub Judge, Jind, has committed a patent illegality in rejecting the application filed by the Petitioners for their impleadment as Defendants. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 argued that the application filed by the Petitioners lacked bona fides and therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the Petitioners. Shri Gupta placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Lal and Another Vs. Ganesh Ram and Others,

Plaintiff-Respondent No. 5 filed a suit for specific performance against Parsa Ram and others in respect of the disputed property. The suit is pending in the trial Court since 4.6.1990. During the pendency of the suit, Defendant No. 1 is said to have sold the suit land to Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who were ordered to be joined as Defendants by the Court''s order dated 14.6.1991. Thereafter, Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are alleged to have transferred the property to the applicant-petitioners. This was followed by an application of Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 to implead the new purchasers as party to the suit. That application was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Jind. Immediately, thereafter the applicants moved the Court for their impleadment as Defendants by alleging that they had purchased the suit land from Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 vide registered sale deed dated 28.2.1992 and they are in possession of the suit land Petitioners claimed that being bona fide purchasers of the property, they were necessary parties to the sit and, therefore, the Court should order their impleadment as Defendants.

The learned trial Court considered the rival submissions and held that the application filed by the Petitioners was not bona fide and that they were bound by the doctrine of Lis Pendense and the Plaintiff cannot be forced to defend the suit by impleading the new persons as parties to the suit.

There is no dispute about the fact that Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had earlier moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 22, Rule 10 of the CPC and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 14.12.1994 and further that the said order has become final. Immediately thereafter the present Petitioners filed application for their impleadment. This goes to show that the Defendants and the Petitioners joined hands to delay the proceedings of the suit by making different applications. That apart, the Petitioners who purchased the property knowing fully well that litigation is going on between the parties in respect of the disputed property are liable to suiter the consequence of the litigation pending between the vendors and the Petitioners. They have purchased the property and have thereby purchased the consequence of the litigation. Therefore, in my opinion, the trial Court has rightly applied the doctrine of Lis Pendense and it has rightly held that the applicants cannot be impleaded as necessary parties.

The impugned order is well reasoned and is based on a correct appreciation of legal position regarding the right of vendees to be added as parties to the suit, who purchased the property with full knowledge about the pending litigation. I find sufficient justification to accept the contention of Shri Gupta that the application filed by the Petitioners was not bona fide and was rather filed with an oblique motive to delay the decision of the suit and, therefore the learned trial Court has not acted illegally in rejecting the application filed by the Petitioners.

For the reasons mentioned above, the revision petition is dismissed.