Kanwaljit Kaur vs Malkiat Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 7876-CII of 2012

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case

Kanwaljit Kaur has invoked jurisidcition of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing this revision petition to challenge order dated 30.07.2011 Annexure P-4 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala City, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-3 moved by petitioner herein for being impleaded as party to the suit which has been instituted by respondents No. 1 and 2 herein against respondents No. 3 to 5 herein. The petitioner alleged in her application that she has purchased the land in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 24.04.2006 and thereafter defendant No. 3-Balbir Kaur (respondent No. 5) is left with no right, title or interest in the suit land and, therefore, applicant-petitioner has become necessary party to the suit. Said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-4 which is under challenge in this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner being purchaser of the suit property is necessary and property party to the suit and is, therefore, entitled to be impleaded as party thereto.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, the contention cannot be accepted. At the outset, it has to be noticed that the suit was filed on 03.03.2006 and thus the alleged purchase of suit land by petitioner from defendant No. 3 vide sale deed dated 24.04.2006 was made during pendency of the suit. Application Annexure P-3 was made on 22.07.2008 i.e. two years and three months after alleged purchase of the suit land by the petitioner. There is no explanation whatsoever for the said delay. The petitioner in her application Annexure P-3 did not even allege that earlier she was not aware of the pendency of the suit nor alleged as to how and when she came to know of the pendency of the suit.

In addition to the aforesaid, the instant revision petition also suffers from delay and laches because it has been filed almost eight months after the passing of the impugned order. Consequently revision petition is also liable to dismissal on the ground of delay and laches.

The petitioner being purchaser pendente lite would be bound by the decree that may be passed in the suit in view of doctrine of lis pendens. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.