Uttarakhand High Court
Revisionists vs Rajkumar Sharma And Others on 24 June, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Hon'ble Justice Sri Rakesh Thapliyal
24th June 2025
Civil Revision No. 65 of 2025
Hulasi Ram and another
............... Revisionists
Vs.
Rajkumar Sharma and others
............Respondents
Counsel for the Revisionist : Mr. Ziaul Mustafa Ansari and Mr.
Rishab Ranghar, learned counsel for
the revisionist
Counsel Respondents: Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil
Chandra, learned counsel for
respondent no. 1 and 2.
(Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
1. The instant revision has been preferred by the
revisionists against the order dated 05.05.2025 passed by
the learned 2nd Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Rudrapur Udham
Singh Nagar in Original Suit No. 44 of 2016, Rajkumar
Sharma and another vs. Late Omwati through LRs and
others, whereby the application moved by the revisionist
under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC has been rejected.
2. Brief facts, of the case, are that an agreement to sell
was executed by one Omwati in favour of one Rajkumar
Sharma and his wife Smt. Ruchi Sharma and when the
sale deed was not executed then a suit was filed by
respondent no. 1 and 2 for specific performance bearing
O.S. No. 44 of 2016 against Omwati but, unfortunately, on
23.05.2016 Omwati died. After the death of Omwati the
name of legal heirs were mutated in the revenue records
and subsequent thereto, the legal heirs were also
substituted in the suit filed by respondent no. 1 and 2,
i.e., O.S. No. 44 of 2016 on 13.02.2019.
3. Before substitution of the LRs of Omwati the LRs
executed sale deed in favour of the present revisionists on
10.12.2018. Thereafter the revisionists, being subsequent
purchaser of the property in question, moved an
application under Order 1 Ruled 10 of CPC for their
impleadment as party-defendant in suit preferred by
respondent no. 1 and 2 but the same was rejected by
observing that the application is pending since 2016 and
barred by Section 52 of the transfer of Property Act. Being
aggrieved with the order rejecting application moved
under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC the instant revision has
been preferred.
4. During course of argument the learned counsel for
the revisionists placed before this Court the copy of the
judgment and order passed by the IIIrd Addl. Civil Judge
(Sr. Div.) Rudrapur passed in Original Suit No. 16 of 2019
which in fact was instituted by the present revisionist
against the LRs of Omwati and by this suit permanent
injunction was sought which was decreed on 27.03.2024
wherein in para 15 it is observed that the present
revisionists are in possession over the property in question
which, in fact, is the subject matter of the suit filed by
respondent no. 1 and 2, i.e., O.S. No. 44 of 2016.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the
present revisionist are still in possession over the land in
question and since their interest are also involved,
therefore, they should be arrayed as defendants in the suit
filed by respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2.
5. On the other side, Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior
Advocate for respondent no. 1 and 2 submits that by
virtue of Section 52 of T.P. Act, the application moved by
the present revisionist under Order 1 Rule 10 is not
maintainable and the learned Civil Judge rightly reject the
same and he further submits that the suit is pending since
2016 and after death of Omwati the LRs have already
been substituted, therefore, principle of lis pendens will
apply, therefore, there is no need to implead the present
revisionists as defendants since the property in question
sold after initiation of the suit, i.e., O.S. no. 44 of 2016
though there was interim order and proceeding under
Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC was also initiated.
6. Apart from this, Mr. Tyagi, further submits that the
Original Suit No. 16 of 2019 filed by the revisionist was a
collusive suit and in that suit only two legal heirs of
Omwati were arrayed as defendants and remaining three
LRs were not substituted. Mr. Tyagi also bring to the
notice of the Court that the legal heirs of Omwati also filed
suit for cancellation of sale deed which was executed by
the legal heirs in favour of the revisionist on 10.12.2018
which is still pending for consideration.
7. Be that as it may, undisputedly the property which
was sold out by the legal heirs of Omwati in favour of the
revisionist is subject matter of Original Suit No. 44 of 2016
which was instituted by respondent no. 1 and 2, and,
therefore, since interest of the revisionist is also involved
therefore for deciding the issue whether present
revisionists should be arrayed as defendants in O.S. No.
44 of 2016 or not it requires deliberation for which counter
affidavit of the respondents is necessary.
8. Issue notices to respondent nos. 3 to 8.
9. Steps to be taken within a week.
10. Let the respondents may file their counter affidavit
within two weeks. One week thereafter is granted to the
revisionists to file rejoinder affidavit.
11. List this case on 22.07.2025.
12. In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain
status quo in respect of the property in question.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
Parul
