SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. VEER BALA AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned judgment is dated 14.08.2006. The impugned order was passed by the first appellate Court dismissing the appeal of the petitioner wherein the application filed by him under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') as also another application filed under the same provision of law by the three applicants i.e. Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Mulk Raj Gupta and Ashima Gupta seeking substitution in place of the plaintiff had been dismissed. The Court was of the view that the suit had abated on the death of the plaintiff and the present application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code not having been filed in that period when the suit was pending and the suit already having abated, this application was not maintainable. The application filed by the present petitioners i.e. Suresh Kumar Aggarwal, Sushila Aggarwal and M/s Arpit Paper Pvt. Ltd as also Gajanand Aggarwal was based on the premise that the earlier purchasers i.e. Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Mulk Raj Gupta and Ashima Gupta had sold their interest and right in the disputed property in their favour; they were thus required to be impleaded in place of the plaintiff Krishan Lal Arneja. This application filed by the aforenoted applicants dated 05.04.2004 had been dismissed on 13.12.2004 by the Civil Judge. Against this order i.e. order dated 13.12.2004, the first appellate Court had reaffirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the application of the applicants vide the impugned order dated 14.08.2006.

(2.) The contention of the applicants was that valid documents of sale had been executed by the aforenoted persons Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Mulk Raj Gupta and Ashima Gupta in their favour; these documents prima-facie show that they are purchasers of this aforenoted property and as such they having got a valid assignment in their favour, they were liable to be impleaded in place of the plaintiff.

(3.) Record shows that the present suit filed by the original plaintiff Krishan Lal Arneja was a suit for specific performance; record shows that even the first applicants i.e. Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Mulk Raj Gupta and Ashima Gupta were never impleaded in place of the plaintiff; their application dated 24.04.1996 was filed but thereafter not pursued. As such the substitution of the second category of persons namely the present petitioners Suresh Kumar Aggarwal, Sushila Aggarwal, M/s Arpit Paper Pvt. Ltd and Gajanand Aggarwal did not arise; they were admittedly claiming their rights only through Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Mulk Raj Gupta and Ashima Gupta who themselves not having allowed to be substituted in place of the original plaintiff, the present petitioners had no right or interest in the suit property; they could in no manner be termed as 'necessary' or 'proper' parties.