Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 992 (PNJ)

Karnail Singh v. Gurbax Singh

2005-09-16

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2005
Judgment Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. In this revision petition, the petitioner has impugned order dated 12.12.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar whereby an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") moved by the present petitioner for impleading one Amarjeet Singh son of Malkiat Singh who was said to be a subsequent transferee from Gariboo-defendant No. l, has been dismissed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed application for impleadment of the aforesaid Amarjeet Singh as party to the suit immediately on coming to know of this fact on production of the record by the Punjab Urban Development Authority (for short "PUDA") on 28.4.1999 and, therefore, aforesaid Amarjeet Singh being a necessary and proper party ought to have been impleaded as defendant. 3. Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. l to 3 has vehemently opposed the contention of counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in fact the property in dispute had been sold in 1993 i.e. even prior to the filing of the suit which was filed on 11.9.1995 and the fact of the sale of the property in dispute by Gariboo in favour of Amarjeet Singh was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner as is evident from the reply filed by PUDA to the legal notice dated 14.6.1995 served by Desa Singh who has originally filed the suit. The counsel further submitted that PUDA in its reply to the legal notice had specifically mentioned that Garibo (defendant No.l) had transferred the plot in the name of Amarjeet Singh son of Malkiat Singh, resident of House No.2872 Phase VII Mohali. The counsel also submitted that in the suit, an official of the PUDA was summoned on 23.8.1996 when PW1 Swaran Singh was examined and even thereafter, no application was filed and the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed and thereafter the case was adjourned for arguments on 9.10.1998, 12.11.1998, 20.11.1998, 26.11.1998, 28.11.1998, 5,12.1998, 10.12.1998 and 17.12.1998 whereas the application for impleadment was filed on 28.4.1999 i.e. more than three years of filing of the written statement. The counsel lastly submitted that the application moved by the petitioner at such a belated stage was mala fide and had been filed to delay the proceedings in the suit. 4. The counsel lastly submitted that the application moved by the petitioner at such a belated stage was mala fide and had been filed to delay the proceedings in the suit. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find considerable force in the contention of counsel for the respondents. The trial Court had rightly dismissed the petitioners application for impleadment of Amarjeet Sigh as party to the suit. It is not disputed that in the reply filed by PUDA to the legal notice served by Desa-plaintiff, it had been specifically mentioned that the plot in dispute had been transferred by Gariboo in favour of Amarjeet Singh and this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner is attributed to the petitioner on the basis of written statement filed by PUDA which had been filed on 15.12.1995. Counsel for the petitioner could not give satisfactory explanation for filing the application for impleadment at such a belated stage. The trial Court, while rejecting the petitioners prayer has observed in para 4 of its order as under: - 4. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff at a very belated stage. In written statement dated 15.12.1995 the PUDA authority has categorically pleaded in para No. 8 that the defendant No. 1 had further transferred the said plot in the name of Amarjit Singh. The plaintiff in the replication on 19.1.1996 has pleaded that para Nos.8 to 10 of the plaint are reasserted and those of written statement are wrong. In such circumstances, it was incumbent on the part of the plaintiff to file the present application immediately after the filing of the written statement i.e. 15.12.1995. Moreover, the original file of the PUDA was placed on the record on 23.8.1996 when PW-1 Swaran Singh was examined. The plaintiff has not taken trouble on 23.8.1996 or afterward to peruse the file for the purpose of knowing that the said plot of the party has already been transferred. The present application was moved on 28.4.1999 i.e. after the lapse of nearly 3 years from the date of filing of written statement. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has filed the present application merely to prolong the case because the case was fixed for final arguments on the main suit. Under these circumstances, the application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. is dismissed. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has filed the present application merely to prolong the case because the case was fixed for final arguments on the main suit. Under these circumstances, the application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. is dismissed. No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is consequently dismissed.