Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bahadur Singh And Anr vs Sube Singh Deceased Thr Lrs And Ors on 6 March, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:032524
227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-4760-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision : 06.03.2024
Bahadur Singh & Another ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sube Singh (deceased through LRs) & Others ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate for petitioner No.2.
Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the
impugned order dated 28.05.2018 dismissing the application filed by the
petitioners herein for being impleaded as a party before the First Appellate
Court.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that one Ram Kanwar,
who had bhondedari rights, sold his bhondedari rights in the year 1992 to
Sube Singh, Dharampal Singh and Madan Pal - defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the
suit. In 2011 Ram Kanwar filed a suit for declaration and consequential
relief of permanent and mandatory injunction that the sale deeds dated
16.11.1992, 19.11.1992, 20.11.1992, 17.11.1992 were a result of fraud and
were illegal, null and void, nonest and a nullity in the eyes of laws and were
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:032524
CR-4760-2018 (O&M) -2-
without consideration. It was further the case set up that he was still in
actual physical possession of the suit land as bhondedar. Defendant-
respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein appeared and contested the suit by filing their
written statement and a counter-claim to the effect that they were owners in
possession of the suit land and that plaintiff-respondent No.4 herein and his
mother Smt. Bharto through their General Power Attorney holder - Chhailu
Ram - sold all their rights, title and interest in the suit land to defendant-
respondent Nos.1 to 3 for a valuable sale consideration. The suit as well as
the counter-claim were dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated
03.01.2015. Ram Kanwar, plaintiff-respondent No.4 herein, chose not to
prefer an appeal challenging the said judgment and decree dated 03.01.2015
passed by the Trial Court. The counter-claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 3
herein) filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated
03.01.2015 dismissing their counter-claim. In the said appeal, the
respondents were proceeded against ex parte. During the pendency of the
appeal, an application was filed by the petitioners herein under Order 1 Rule
10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for
impleading them as respondents on the ground that they had purchased the
property in dispute on 02.07.2014 for a valuable sale consideration and they
were bonafide purchasers. The said application was contested by the
respondents herein. Vide the impugned order the application was dismissed.
Hence, the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:032524
CR-4760-2018 (O&M) -3-
petitioners want to be impleaded as a party so as to defend their rights since
they are subsequent purchasers. It is further the contention of the learned
counsel that the petitioners do not wish to get a de novo trial done and do not
want to file any fresh pleadings or to lead any fresh evidence. In support of
his contention he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the cases of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakpur & Ors.
[1999 (2) SCC 577]; B. Fathima Beevi & Anr. Vs. Sornammal @
Sornam (Dead) Th. LRs & Ors. [2019 DNJ 65]; Robin Ramjibhai Patel
Vs. Anandibai Rama @ Rajaram Pawar & Ors. [2018 (15) SCC 614]
and the judgments of this Court in the cases of Teja Singh Vs. Pritam
Singh & Ors. [2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 912] and Satish Kumar & Anr. Vs.
Anup Singh & Ors. [2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 967].
4. Per contra the learned counsel for defendant-respondent Nos.1
to 3 has contended that Ram Kanwar, who was the plaintiff, chose not to file
an appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2015 dismissing
his suit. In the appeal preferred by defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 he
chose not to appear and hence the petitioners who are claiming a right to the
property through Ram Kanwar would have no right to be impleaded as a
party. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Pradhan & Ors. Vs. Sonu
Kumhar & Ors. [(2019) 10 SCC 259] and the judgment of this Court in the
case of Gurminder Kaur Vs. Mohinder Pal Singh & Ors. [2020 (1) RCR
(Civil) 1].
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:032524
CR-4760-2018 (O&M) -4-
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. In the present case no doubt the sale in favour of the petitioners
is during the pendency of the proceedings i.e. on 02.07.2014 and would be
hit by the principles of lis pendens, however, since the respondents are not
appearing in the appeal and have been proceeded against ex parte, the
petitioners would have a right to be impleaded as a party only to defend the
appeal by stepping into the shoes of Ram Kanwar. The petitioners would
have no right to file any fresh pleadings or to lead any fresh evidence.
However, denying them a right to be impleaded as a party would mean that
their interest goes undefended and the same would cause prejudice to their
rights. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant-
respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the case of Gurminder Kaur (supra) is
distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the defendants were represented in the
case referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents, however, in the
present case in the appeal the respondents have been proceeded against ex
parte. Only in order to let the petitioners watch their interest and to defend
the appeal on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence already on the
record, the application ought to have been allowed.
7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 is
set aside. The application is allowed and the petitioners are impleaded as
parties in the appeal. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners would not
be permitted to file any fresh pleadings or to lead any evidence.
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:032524
CR-4760-2018 (O&M) -5-
8. Disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed off.
06.03.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
