Pushpa Rani vs Kirti Sharma and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This petition is filed against the order dated 12.05.2014 by which an application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (here-in-after referred to as the "C.P.C.") for impleading her as a party in the suit, has been dismissed. The facts, as narrated before me, are that one Hari Mitter was the owner of the property in dispute. He sold it to Sh. S.K. Sharma on 04.01.2005. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed the suit for declaration that she is the owner of the property in dispute in view of the sale deed executed by the GPA of Hari Mitter, but before the suit could have been filed on 10.05.2008, S.K. Sharma sold the property in dispute to Madhu Bala on 30.04.2008, who further sold it to Pushpa Rani (petitioner herein) on 28.05.2013 who has now sold it to another Pushpa Devi wife of Raja Ram during the pendency of the present revision petition.

It may be highlighted that notice of motion was issued in this petition on 26.05.2014 with the following observations:-

"It is contended that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in a suit for declaration challenging the sale deed executed by original owner in favour of defendant No. 1, the applicant has purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed and therefore acquired a right to be impleaded in order to protect her interest. In support, he cites judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors P. Ltd. and Others, ."

The petitioner had an interest in the property in dispute and could have been a necessary party because she had purchased the property in dispute on 28.05.2013, but indubitably she sold the property in dispute to Pushpa Devi wife of Raja Ram on 11.06.2014, even before the appearance of the respondents in this revision petition and lost her ownership rights and also interest in the property in dispute. Now the suit could only be defended by Pushpa Devi wife of Raja Ram who is stated to have stepped into the shoes of S.K. Sharma.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the dispute in this case is as to whether the plaintiff could claim a right in the property in dispute on the basis of the sale deed dated 13.01.2006, all the subsequent purchasers from Hari Mitter have a right in the property in dispute, therefore, the petitioner is a necessary party. He has also submitted that the petitioner would not file any written statement or lead any evidence, in case impleaded as a defendant.

On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the petitioner has lost her right to be impleaded as a necessary party after having sold the property in dispute to Pushpa Devi wife of Raja Ram.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner had a right in the property in dispute when she had filed the present petition to become a party to the suit, but the fact remains that she had not only sold the land in dispute to Pushpa Devi wife of Raja Ram during the pendency of the present petition, but also the subsequent purchaser has already filed an application to become a party to the suit which has been allowed on 07.07.2014. Accordingly, the petitioner has snapped her ties with the litigation as soon as she lost her ownership rights over the property in dispute by way of sale and has nothing to look forward in the pending litigation except for being a former vendor of the present vendee to whom the rights have been assigned. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.