(1.) The above mentioned two petitions, filed under Article227 of the Constitution, are directed against the two orders both dated the 2 2/02/1996, passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Delhi in Case No.150/95-CA entitled Shri Bed Ram v. Wintex Imports and Exports (P) Ltd. and Othersand case No. 149/95-CA entitled Shri Bed Ram v. Mis. Castle Builders (P) Ltd. andOthers whereby the learned Financial Commissioner dismissed the applications ofthe petitioners, filed by them in the above mentioned appeals under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred toas 'the CPC') for being impleaded as a party in the abovesaid proceedings pendingbefore the learned Financial Commissioner.
(2.) Since the abovementioned two petitions, though filed by two differentpetitioners separately, raise common question for consideration, the same, with theconsent of the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard together and are beingdisposed of by this common order. The facts relevant for the disposal of the abovementioned petitions.are also common and lie in a narrow compass. In both the abovementioned petitions the petitioners have purchased separate pieces of land, formingpart of Khasra No. 715/1, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kilokheri, TehsilMehrauli by means of a registered sale deed, registered in the office of the sub Registrar Delhi on 23.6.1995 for a consideration of Rs l,95,000.00 each. It is asserted that both the petitioners are in possession of the property purchased by them videabove mentioned registered sale deeds. Both of them applied for mutation and theproperty purchased by them stands mutated in their favour in the revenue records.Shri Bed Ram (respondent No. 2) preferred an appeal in both the cases challengingthe mutation. It is alleged that the petitioners in the month of December, 1995 cameto know that a case was pending before the learned Financial Commissionerpertaining to the piece of land purchased by them and consequently both thepetitioners filed separate applications in the proceedings pending before the learnedFinancial Commissioner under Order I Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code seeking impleadment as aparty in those proceedings. The learned Financial Commissioner vide impugnedorder has dismissed the applications of the petitioners, filed by them under Order1 Rule 10 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code for impleadment. Feeling aggrieved thepetitioners have filed the present petitions under Article 227 of the Constitutionbefore this Court.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have alsocarefully gone through the documents/material on record. The learned Counsel forthe petitioners has submitted that the learned Financial Commissioner, in the factsand circumstances of the case, was not justified in dismissing the applications of thepetitioners because the petitioners, being the owners in possession of the lands inquestion are not only the interested parties but are likely to be affected by an orderthat may be passed by the learned Financial Commissioner in the proceedingspending before him. It was submitted by him that the orders, impugned in thepresent proceedings, deserve to be quashed and the applications filed by thepetitioners before the learned Financial Commissioner under Order I Rule 10 readwith Section 151, Civil Procedure Code for impleadment deserve to be allowed with costs. On theother hand the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 (who is the only contestingrespondent in the present proceedings) submitted that the present petitions arenothing but an abuse of the process of law because of the fact that a transfer made during the pendency of a proceeding is governed by the doctrine of lis pendeaceand if during the pendency of a litigation any person purchases the interest of a partyto the litigation such a person cannot seek impleadment in the proceedings because he is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the proceedings.