Kulwant Singh vs Balbir Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14180 P&H

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111683




          Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:111683
CR-8152-2017                                                         1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

106                                 CR-8152-2017
                                    Date of Decision:25.08.2023

Kulwant Singh                                                 ....Petitioner

                                 Versus

Balbir Singh
                                                          ...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:     Mr. Kanhiya Soni, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate
             for the respondent.

               *****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.(Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the

plaintiff/petitioner against the order dated 31.08.2017 passed by

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, whereby the

application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order I Rule 10

CPC for impleading Kuldeep Singh Sandhu and Charanjit Kaur as

party/defendants to the civil suit was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after

institution of the civil suit by the plaintiff on 17/18.11.2015, one of the

property belonging to the defendant was transferred in favour of

Kuldeep Singh Sandhu s/o Ruldu Singh Sandhu vide sale deed Vasika

No. 7695 dated 07.12.2015, and another property was transferred in

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111683

Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:111683

favour of Charanjit Kaur w/o Charanjit Singh vide sale deed Vasika

No. 2081 dated 10.05.2016. Petitioner/plaintiff claims that execution

of the said sale deeds is nothing, but sham transactions.

3. However, Learned counsel for the respondent submits

that learned trial Court after considering all the aspects, has observed

that there is no material available on record to hold that execution of

sale deeds is nothing but sham transactions.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that

petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of an amount of

Rs.13,50,000/- on the basis of two dishonoured cheques issued by the

defendant, in favour of the plaintiff. Admittedly, both the proposed

defendants are neither the signatories to the cheques in question; nor

involved in any manner in the money transactions as pleaded in the

plaint by the plaintiff. He further contends that in other words, both of

them, to whom plaintiff wants to implead as defendants are strangers

to the transaction, which even took place, prior to the filing of the

civil suit. Merely because proposed defendants purchased the

properties, they cannot be dragged to the proceedings of the pending

civil suit.

Moreover, there is no dispute over the fact that the

properties sold out to the proposed defendants was owned by the

defendant and he was entitled to transfer the same to anyone by way

of sale. It is a well settled law that every person, who is a lawful

owner of the property, is free to sell out the same, until there is some

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111683

Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:111683

restrain order by the Court or charge of some third party. Reliance is

placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as of Kasturi

Vs. Iyyamperumal and others 2005(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 691; Law

Finder Doc Id # 82744. For the sake of convenience, the relevant

paragraph of the judgment reads as under:

'12. From the aforesaid discussion, it is pellucid that necessary parties are those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the Court or that there must be a right to some relief against some party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings and proper parties are those whose presence before the Court would be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the settle all the questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such person.'

5. In view of the above, this Court does not find any

infirmity in the order dated 31.08.2017 passed by learned trial

Court, thus, present revision petition stands dismissed.

                                               [SANJAY VASHISTH]
                                                    JUDGE
August 25, 2023
rashmi
      Whether speaking/reasoned                Yes/no
      Whether reportable?                      Yes/no

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111683

3 of 3