SARITA GUPTA Vs. OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS No. 3 to 5 have filed a suit against respondent nos. 1& 2 restraining them from interfering with the passage which is being used by them. During pendency of the suit, it seems that the property in question was transferred by the respondent nos. 3 to 5 in favour of the petitioner. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Trial Court against which an appeal has been filed before the appellate authority which is still pending. During pendency of the Suit before the Trial Court, an application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.) was filed by the petitioner seeking his impleadment as co -plaintiff in the said suit on the principle of assignment. Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the principle of lis -pendens will apply as such there is no necessity of impleading the petitioner as co -plaintiff in the suit. Thereafter another application came to be filed by the petitioner seeking his impleadment as co -plaintiff which was again rejected by the trial Court. It is under these circumstances, present petition has been filed.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Pankaj Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. None appeared on behalf of respondents.

(3.) EVEN though in the present case, there is a dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants in respect to the property which is not subject matter of challenge by the parties. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for injunction only in respect of the passage, which is being used, has already suffered a judgment from the trial Court against which an appeal is pending before the appellate authority.