Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 396 (PNJ)

Devinder Singh v. Kuldip Kaur

2014-02-19

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The contour of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, the application (Annexure P6) filed by petitioner Devinder Singh son of Darshan Singh (for brevity “the petitioner- DH”) for impleading him as a party (defendant) under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC, in the suit filed by respondent No.1 Smt. Kuldip Kaur against her husband Ajit Singh s/o Kaka Singh-respondent No.2 (for short “the respondent-JD”) was dismissed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 29.8.2011 (Annexure P7). 2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-DH has preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. As is evident from the record that Ajit Singh respondent-JD, husband of Kuldip Kaur (plaintiff), was owner and in possession of land in dispute. He executed an agreement to sell his land dated 9.1.2006 in favour of petitioner-DH. Since the JD did not perform his part of contract, so, the DH filed the civil suit, bearing No.378 of 2006 against him for possession by way of specific performance of the pointed agreement to sell. 5. Having completed all the codal formalities, ultimately, the suit of petitioner-DH was decreed by the trial Court, by means of judgment & decree dated 25.10.2008 (Annexure P2). 6. Thereafter, Kuldip Kaur has filed another suit (Annexure P5) against her husband-JD for grant of maintenance by creating the charge on the agricultural land in dispute. As soon as, the petitioner-DH came to know about the subsequent suit, he moved the application (Annexure P6) for impleading him as a party (defendant) in it. The trial Court dismissed the indicated application, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P7), which, in substance, is as under:- “I have gone through the record and have considered the submissions of both the sides. The trial Court dismissed the indicated application, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P7), which, in substance, is as under:- “I have gone through the record and have considered the submissions of both the sides. Though the applicant Davinder Singh appears to have a vested interest in the property in dispute on which the unsuccessful defendant i.e. Ajit Singh (current respondent) suffered injunction against alienation, but fact remains that applicant Kuldip Kaur is the Master of her own case. She cannot be forced to pursue the current proceedings against an unwanted and irrelevant party i.e. Davinder Singh. The said injunction against alienation of property in question in my considered view cannot be a bar to proceedings pursuant to above said decree dated 25.8.2010 in favour of Davinder Singh as such process would be a due process of law. Keeping in view the totality of these circumstances and the fact that presence of Davinder Singh is not required for disposal of current pauper proceedings or the lis between Kuldip Kaur and her husband Ajit Singh and, therefore, this application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has to be dismissed. The same consequently is declined.” 7. That means, the main ground, which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court to negate the plea of petitioner-DH, was that although he has vested interest in the property, but Kuldip Kaur plaintiff is a Master of her own case and she cannot be forced to implead him as a party (defendant). Here, to me, the trial Court has slipped into a deep legal error in this respect. 8. As indicated here-in-above, the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement was decreed in favour of petitioner-DH by the trial Court, vide judgment & decree (Annexure P2). It is not a matter of dispute that the pointed judgment and decree have attained the finality. In pursuance thereof, the sale deed dated 8.4.2010 (Annexure P3) has already been executed/registered in favour of petitioner-DH. Not only that, he has already obtained the symbolic possession and the execution petition was dismissed as fully satisfied, by way of order dated 11.8.2011 (Annexure P4). 9. Meaning thereby, the petitioner-DH has already become the owner of the property in litigation, in pursuance of the decree of the civil Court rendered against Ajit Singh respondent-JD, husband of Kuldip Kaur (plaintiff in the subsequent suit). 9. Meaning thereby, the petitioner-DH has already become the owner of the property in litigation, in pursuance of the decree of the civil Court rendered against Ajit Singh respondent-JD, husband of Kuldip Kaur (plaintiff in the subsequent suit). Hence, the petitioner-DH was a necessary party to be impleaded as a defendant in the main suit. 10. Therefore, the petitioner-DH was a necessary party and deserves to be impleaded as a defendant in the subsequent suit, in view of ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in cases Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and others [2013(2) Law Herald (SC) 1240 : 2013(2) Land L.R. 292 (SC)] : (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases 397 ; Sumtibai & Ors. v. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) & Ors. [2007(4) Law Herald (SC) 3201] : 2007(4) Civil Court Cases 593 (SC) and Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur & Ors. 1999(3) Civll Court Cases 175 (SC). Thus, the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand and the contrary submissions of learned counsel for the respondents “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the subsequent suit, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P7) is set aside and the application (Annexure P6) filed by the petitioner-DH under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stands allowed. The trial Court is directed to implead him as a defendant to contest the subsequent suit in accordance with law. 13. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the suit, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————