Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 142 (PNJ)

Surinder Kaur v. Gurnam Singh

2008-01-22

RANJIT SINGH

body2008
Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. On 23.5.2004, Gurnam Singh, respondent-plaintiff, entered into an agreement with the petitioner for sale of a property in dispute. One Parminder Singh was the partner of respondent-Gurnam Singh. A sum of Rs. 25 lacs was paid to the petitioner as earnest money. The respondent-plaintiff has now brought a suit with the allegation that the petitioner had failed to execute the sale deed as per the term of the sale agreement and accordingly he is entitled to a decree of specific performance of an agreement in question. 2. The petitioner filed a written statement admitting execution of the agreement and receipt of the earnest money. She, however, pleaded that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of Parminder Singh, co-contractee of respondent-Gurnam Singh. Plea also is that the said agreement has been cancelled/terminated. A preliminary issue on the basis of the objection regarding non-joining of Parminder Singh was framed on 17.7.2006. This order was impugned by the respondent-plaintiff by filing a revision before this Court, which was dismissed. Respondent-plaintiff, thereafter, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Parminder Singh and also the subsequent purchaser of the property in dispute as it also stood sold in the meanwhile. It is stated by the respondent-plaintiff that the presence of Parminder Singh and the subsequent purchaser is necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy. Prayer for amendment of the plaint is sought to challenge the sale deeds executed by the petitioner in favour of subsequent vendees. 3. The petitioner filed a reply, stating that the application is not maintainable. As per the petitioner, there is no requirement or necessity of impleading the subsequent purchasers as their rights would be governed by the doctrine of lis-pendens and since the preliminary issue in regard to non-joinder of Parminder Singh is already framed, the same should be decided to avoid prolonging the proceedings. The petitioner otherwise admitted that the property has now been further alienated to M/s Samra International Private Limited. 4. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, has allowed the application filed by respondent-plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and also second application filed under Order 6 Rule 7 CPC for amendment of the plaint. This order is now under challenge. 5. The stand taken by the petitioner is really not understood. 4. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, has allowed the application filed by respondent-plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and also second application filed under Order 6 Rule 7 CPC for amendment of the plaint. This order is now under challenge. 5. The stand taken by the petitioner is really not understood. In a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner had raised a preliminary objection that the same is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and accordingly urged that Parminder Singh is a necessary party. It is pleaded that in his absence the suit is not maintainable or can not be prosecuted. Now when the respondent- plaintiff has moved for impleading Parminder Singh, the same is being opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court has justifiably observed that the respondent-plaintiff can not be penalized for wrong stand taken at initial stage. No evidence has so far been recorded and as such, considering this fact to be essential and so also the presence of Parminder Singh, has allowed this application. The respondent-plaintiff is also justified in his plea in impleading the subsequent purchaser. This part of the objection by the petitioner again is not justified. Having considered that the property in dispute is alienated further, it is appropriate that the subsequent purchaser is impleaded so as to decide the entire lis in one go. As has been observed by the trial Court, in case this part of the prayer is not granted, then no effective decree can be passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff as he would then definitely face a difficulty in executing the decree even if he ultimately succeeds. The trial Court while granting the prayer of the respondent-plaintiff had burdened him with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, which appears equitable. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 6. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.