ARVIND KUMAR Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, thereby rejecting the application of the third party/petitioner seeking impleadment as one of the defendant in a suit under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.

(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant Madan Lal son of Babu Ram, who is father of the present petitioner third party. In the suit, third party petitioner herein had filed his own affidavit as one of the witness being DW2. After long pendency of the suit, third party petitioner herein moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. with the changed name as Arvind Kumar saying that he has purchased the property from his father defendant on 02.04.2000. In fact admittedly present petitioner has filed his own affidavit, as DW2 before the learned Trial Court being a witness of his own father i.e. defendant, mentioning his name as Arvinder Kumar. While in the present application, he is alleging himself to be Arvind Kumar but fact remains, he himself has filed present application, as well as, affidavit in two different names. Applying the doctrine, he who seeks equity must come with clean hands, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Moreover, once petitioner third party himself has appeared as a witness and has not disclosed the alleged sale deed in his favour by the defendant, now he cannot be permitted to be impleaded to say that defendant has sold this property in favour of his own son on 02.04.2000. It seems that alleged sale deed by the petitioner is a collusive and bogus document. Had there been any valid sale deed in favour of the petitioner he would have disclosed the same in his affidavit filed as a defendants witness. One should not be permitted to play hot and cold in one breath. Petitioner is not able to show his interest in the property in dispute. Dismissed.