Sardar Gurvachan Singh And Another ... vs Smt. Kamla Devi Jain And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 140 UK

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 140 UK
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2024

Uttarakhand High Court

Sardar Gurvachan Singh And Another ... vs Smt. Kamla Devi Jain And Others on 23 February, 2024

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Writ Petition (M/S) No.145 of 2018

Sardar Gurvachan Singh and another                         ....Petitioners

                                  Versus

Smt. Kamla Devi Jain and others                       .... Respondents

Present:

Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned senior counsel (through V.C.) assisted by Mr. Mohd.
Matlub, learned counsel for respondent nos.1/1 to 1/4.


                                                       Dated: 23.02.2024


Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that respondent no.2, 5, 6 and 7/plaintiffs filed a

suit against respondent no.1/defendant seeking a decree

of declaration to declare the respondent no.2, 5, 6 and

7/plaintiffs as owner in possession of the suit property;

that, the suit was decreed ex parte on 07.08.2007; that,

respondent no.1/defendant filed an application under

Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC along with an application for

condonation of delay to set aside the ex parte decree;

that, the ex parte decree passed in favour of respondent

no.2, 5, 6 and 7/plaintiff was set aside vide order dated

20.10.2010 and the suit was restored; that, however,

when the suit was decreed ex parte in favour of the

plaintiffs, the respondent no.2, 5, 6 and 7/plaintiffs

executed registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners

and two others.

2. He would submit that against the order of

restoration of suit and the setting aside of ex parte decree

by the trial court, respondent no.2/plaintiff filed a

revision, however, the same was dismissed on

13.08.2015.

3. He would further submit that after restoration

of suit, petitioners who had purchased the part of the

property from respondent no.2, 5, 6 and 7/plaintiffs by

three separate registered sale deeds dated 16.03.2008,

01.08.2014 and 01.09.2014, filed an application under

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC thereby praying to implead them as

co-plaintiffs in the suit as they were successors-in-

interest to respondent no.2, 5, 6 and 7/plaintiff.

4. He would further submit that this application

for impleadment was allowed, however, prayer for

consequential amendment in the plaint was disallowed

by the same order i.e. dated 23.09.2016; that, being

aggrieved, petitioners filed a revision, which was also

dismissed. He would submit that the revisional court not

only dismissed the revision but also observed that the

petitioners have been impleaded and made co-plaintiffs

in the suit against the law and also set aside the order of

impleadment. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

place reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in re "A. Nawab John And Others Vs. V.N.

Subramaniyam, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 738" and would

refer paragraph 22, which is extracted hereunder:-

"22. The preponderance of opinion of this Court

is that a pendente lite purchaser's application

for impleadment should normally be allowed or

"considered liberally"."

6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for

respondent no.1/defendant would submit that he is the

true owner and in possession of the suit property. He,

however, would fairly admit that in order to decide the

controversy between the parties, the suit should be

decided by earliest and, therefore, a consent

judgment/order may be passed herein thereby allowing

the petitioners/successors-in-interest to respondent

no.2, 5, 6 and 7/plaintiffs as co-plaintiffs in the suit but

without granting any permission for consequential

amendment in the plaint.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would