Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 134 (PNJ)

Inderjit Singh v. Jagir Singh

2002-01-30

M.M.KUMAR

body2002
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 4.10.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, the Code), seeking permission to join him and Dalbir Singh as defendants in the suit filed by the plaintiff No. 1 against the defendant-respondent No. 2. 2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has filed Civil Suit No. 242 dated 14.9.1996/16.7.1997 for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property and the sale deed dated 23.11.1995 allegedly executed by him is a forged and fraudulent document which is liable to be cancelled. It is further claimed that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 never sold this property to defendant-respondent No. 2. Further consequential relief of permanent injunction from interfering or alienating the property on the basis of fraudulent sale deed has also been claimed. In this suit, an application has been filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code seeking permission to join Dalbir Singh and him as defendants by taking the plea that the suit property was sold to Dalbir Singh and the petitioner with equal shares on 4.12.1996. It is further claimed that they are in possession of the suit property having constructed shops therein. Various documents from the record have been quoted which show that defendant-respondent No. 2 has acquired proprietary rights which include entries in the record of Municipal Corporation and payment of house tax etc. In the application averments have also been made stating that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 attempted to break open the lock of the suit property but later compromised with defendant-respondent No. 2. Later on, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed and an application in the Court of Rent Controller was also dismissed on 6.9.1998. It is further asserted that on the basis of the sale deed executed by defendant-respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner and one Dalbir Singh, a loan of Rs. One lac has been obtained from the Punjab National Bank. Therefore, they are necessary and proper parties for just decision of the case. 3. I have heard Shri Raman Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have perused the record. One lac has been obtained from the Punjab National Bank. Therefore, they are necessary and proper parties for just decision of the case. 3. I have heard Shri Raman Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have perused the record. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 who is contesting party was served by way of affixation but no one has put in appearance on his behalf. Shri Sharma states that appearance of defendant- respondent No. 2 is not necessary for decision of the present revision petition. 4. Shri Raman Sharma has submitted that the decision of the suit would vitally affect the rights of the petitioner and Dalbir Singh who are bona fide vendees from defendant respondent No. 2 vide sale deed dated 4.12,1996. According to the learned counsel if the sale deed of the vendor of the petitioner dated 23.11.1995 executed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is found to be fraudulent, then their rights would be adversely affected. He has further contended that it is not unknown that in such like circumstances persons like defendant-respondent No. 2 having sold the property loses interest in the consequences. If the bona fide vendees are allowed to come before the Court, they can took after their interest with greater care. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and am of the view that this revision petition deserves to be allowed because the petitioner prima facie appears to be bona fide purchaser of the suit property from the defendant-respondent No. 2 (who is now stated to have died). The allegation of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 against defendant-respondent No. 2 is that he had forged and fabricated the sale deed dated 23.11.1995 which should be set aside. The petitioner moved the application in the suit stating that he alongwith one Dalbir Singh had purchased the property from the defendant-respondent No. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 4.12.1996 and Avtar Singh has been proceeded ex parte. He is not taking any interest in the litigation. In my considered opinion if the sale deed of defendant-respondent No. 2 is found to be fictitious on the basis of findings to be recorded in the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, then the vital rights of the petitioner and Dalbir Singh would be adversely affected. Therefore, they are liable to be joined as defendants. In my considered opinion if the sale deed of defendant-respondent No. 2 is found to be fictitious on the basis of findings to be recorded in the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, then the vital rights of the petitioner and Dalbir Singh would be adversely affected. Therefore, they are liable to be joined as defendants. In somewhat similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others, (1999)2 S.C.C. 577 allowed such vendees to join the proceedings in the suit, although the sale transaction had taken place during the pendency of the suit. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under : "The facts set out by us in the earlier paragraphs are sufficient to show that there is a dispute as to whether the first defendant in the suit was a party to the order of injunction made by the Court on 18.8.1992. The proceedings for punishing him to contempt are admittedly pending. The plea raised by him that the first respondent has played a fraud not only against him but also on the Court would have to be decided before it can be said that the sales effected by the first defendant were in violation of the order of the Court. The plea raised by respondents No. 3 to 5 that they were bona fide transferees for value in good faith may have to be decided before it can be held that the sale in their favour created no interest in the property. The aforesaid questions have to be decided by the Court either in the suit or in the application filed by respondents 3 to 5 for impleadment in the suit. If the application for impleadment is thrown out without a decision on the aforesaid questions, Respondents 3 to 5 will certainly come up with a separate suit to enforce their alleged rights which means a multiplicity of proceedings. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that respondents 3 to 5 are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC enables the court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the court is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC enables the court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the court is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the said provision in the Code." (emphasis supplied) 6. Applying the principle referred to in the case of Savitri Devi (supra), I find that the impugned order dated 4.10.1999 passed by the Civil Judge suffers from material irregularity because if the petitioner alongwith Dalbir Singh are not allowed to become party-defendants, then their rights would be adversely affected and they may have to file a separate suit. The multiplicity of litigation can be avoided by granting permission to the petitioner and Dalbir Singh to join them as defendants. 7. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4.10.1999 is set aside. It is directed that petitioner along with Dalbir Singh may be allowed to join as party-defendants. Petition allowed.