LAWS(DLH)-2006-3-6

GOBIND RAM ARORA Vs. NARENDRA KANDHARI

Decided On March 29, 2006
GOBIND RAM ARORA Appellant
V/S
NARENDER KANDHARI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Vide impugned order dated 16.2.2006, the learned Single Judge has allowed impleadment of respondent Nos. 9 and 10 along with consequential amendment in a suit for partition filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent Nos. 2 to 7. The impugned order was passed on an application being I.A. No. 10242/2005 filed by respondentNo. 1 for impleadment of respondent Nos, 9 and 10 in his aforementioned suit for partition.

(2.) The facts that necessitated filing of the aforementioned application are that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the appellant had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC for his impleadment on the ground that respondent No. 2, Smt. Pushpa Kandhari, had sold the front portion of the property bearing No. C-3/9, Krishna Nagar, Delhi to him on the basis of a registered Sale Deed dated 4.3.2000. Through that application, the respondent No. 1 learnt that respondent No. 2, against whom a suit for partition was filed, had also sold the remaining portion of the aforementioned property bearing No. C-3/9, Krishna Nagar, Delhi to respondent Nos. 9 and 10 by virtue of a duly registered Sale Deed of the same date; that is, 4.3.2000. The application for impleadment filed by respondent No. 8 was allowed and he was impleaded as a party. Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 to whom the remaining portion of the aforementioned property was sold have also been made parties to the suit and the consequential amendment regarding relief claimed against them has also been allowed vide the impugned order.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in T.L.Muddukrishana and Another v.Lalitha Ramchandra Rao (Smt.), (1997) 2 SCC 611, and on the strength of the said judgment he has argued that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by allowing amendment with regard to the relief claimed against respondent Nos. 9 and 10 as the same had become time-barred on the date an application for amendment was filed.