Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramvishal vs Kamla on 21 July, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 21st OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 13350 of 2017
Between:-
1. RAMVISHAL S/O VINDA AHIRWAR , AGED
ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
MAJHPATIYA POST-BARHA, TEH. GORIHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NARENDRA S/O SHRI VINDA AHIRWAR , AGED
ABOUT 14 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT,
MINOR THR. FATHER VINDA AHIRWAR VILL.
MAJHPATIYA POST BARHA TEH. GORIHAR
DISTT. CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SANDEEP S/O SHRI VINDA AHIRWAR , AGED
ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT,
MINOR THR. FATHER VINDA AHIRWAR VILL.
MAJHPATIYA POST BARHA TEH. GORIHAR
DISTT. CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. PHOOLARANI W/O SHRI RAMSWAROOP
AHIRWAR , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILL. MAJHPATIYA
POST BARHA TEH. GORIHAR DISTT.
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DEEPENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KAMLA D/O RAMSHRE KACHHI , AGED ABOUT
40 YEARS, VILAGE MAJHPATIYA AT PRESENT
VILLAGE CHANDPURA TEH. GORIHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BATASIYA D/O RAMASHRE KACHHI , AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, VILL. MANWARA TEH.
GORIHAR DISTT. CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
SAN
PRADESH)
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2022.07.22 16:40:58 IST
3. BETI BAI D/O RAMASHRE KACHHI , AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, VILL. MAJHPATIYA PRE. R/O
2
VILL. PADOI TEH. AND DISTT. BANDA (UTTAR
PRADESH)
4. RAMASHRE KACHHI S/O SUKKU KACHHI ,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, VILL. MAJHPATIYA
TEH. GORIHAR DISTT. CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. MST. MATHURIYA @ MANURIYA D/O LATE
SHRI PRATAP KACHHI , AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
VILL. MAJHPATIYA TEH. GORIHAR DISTT.
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. HORILAL KACHHI S/O PREETAM KACHHI ,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILL. MAJHPATIYA
TAH. GORIHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. THE COLLECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANOJ MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO
3)
(NONE FOR OTHER RESPONDENTS THOUGH SERVED)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Court below in a Civil
Suit No.17-A/2017 pending before II Civil Judge, Class-I, Laundi District
Chhatarpur (M.P).
Counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the suit,
an application (Annexure-P-4) has been filed by the plaintiffs under Order 1
Rule 10 of CPC for impleading the purchaser of the land in question as a party.
Counsel for respondents/plaintiffs submits that the application was not
Signature Not Verified
opposed by any of the party despite that Court below has rejected the same
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
mentioning therein that the application has been opposed by counsel for the
Date: 2022.07.22 16:40:58 IST
plaintiffs. The present petitioners are the subsequent purchasers and are
intending to be a party in the civil suit.
However, counsel for the parties submit that the reason assigned in the
order by the trial court was not factually correct, because plaintiffs have not
opposed the said application.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for parties and
perused the record.
The trial court has rejected the application on the ground that as per the
settled principle of law if during the pendency of a suit, property is transferred
then purchaser to the said property is not required to be impleaded. The Court
below has relied upon a judgment reported in AIR 2007 SC 1332 (Sanjay
Verma Vs. Manik Roy and others ) and 2005 (6) SCC 733 (Kasturi Vs.
Iyyamperumal & others).
Perusal of record also reveals that the present petitioners have never
moved any application before the trial court for impleading themselves to be a
party, therefore, this petition otherwise is not maintainable, because plaintiffs
have not filed this petition whose application has been rejected by the Court
below. The reason assigned by the trial court is justified because if any sale is
made during the pendency of a suit that too of a declaration of title in relation to
the suit property and any transaction is made or said property is transferred, the
purchaser of the suit property is not required to be impleaded because that sale
would be governed with the principle of lis pendence.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any substance in the petition.
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2022.07.22 16:40:58 IST
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
sushma
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2022.07.22 16:40:58 IST
