Smt. Iva Nandi vs Sh. Suresh Toshniwal & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5750 Del

     *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+           C.M.(M) No. 1007/2014 & C.M.Nos.18466/2014 (Stay),
            18467/2014 (Exemption)

%                                                            12th November, 2014

SMT. IVA NANDI                                                    ..... Petitioner
                               Through       Mr.S.K.Bhaduri, Advocate.
                               versus

SH. SURESH TOSHNIWAL & ORS.                                        ..... Respondents

Through CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated

06.9.2014 which has dismissed the application filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure Act,

1908 (CPC). By the application under Section 151 CPC the

petitioner/plaintiff sought direction to the respondents/defendants to disclose

the names of the buyers to whom the suit property was sold.

2. In reply to the application, the respondents/defendants stated that they

are still in possession of the suit property, and they had not transferred the

possession of the suit property to the buyers. The trial court has dismissed

the application stating that the suit is only for injunction and not a suit for

declaration of the title.

3. In my opinion, since injunction is a relief in personam and against a

specific person, the trial court was justified in making the observations that

the relief of injunction as claimed is only against the existing

respondents/defendants, and therefore the transferees of the suit property

need not be brought on record. In any case, in my opinion, the issue argued

by the petitioner is answered against the petitioner/plaintiff by the judgment

of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai

Prakash University and Others AIR 2001 SC 2552 which holds that once

there is a devolution of interest during the pendency of the suit under Order

XXII Rule 10 CPC, there is no need to bring on record the subsequent

transferees and the suit can continue against the original defendants in the

suit, and the onus is upon the transferees if they want to get themselves

impleaded as defendants, but in the absence of impleadment of the

subsequent transferees as defendants the same will not mean that the decree

passed against the existing defendants in the suit will not bind the

transferees.

4. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition, and the same is

therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 12, 2014 KA