JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. SHANGARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the case of the petitioner is that Smt. Sohinder Kaur was the landowner and Shangara Singh respondent No. 1 was her tenant on the land in dispute. She filed an application for ejectment against respondent No.1 in the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Thanesar, who accepted the application and passed an ex parte order of ejectment on November 16, 1970. Respondent No. 1 went up in appeal before the Collector, who accepted the same, vide his order dated May 30, 1973, and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Thanesar, for decision afresh. Smt. Sohinder Kaur filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was dismissed on November 27, 1973. She then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2. While the revision petition was pending she died on May 22, 1974.

(2.) It is stated that Smt. Sohinder Kaur had sold the land in dispute to Jagdish Chander, petitioner on May 29, 1971, through a registered sale deed and consequently he had become its owner. On the death of Smt. Sohinder Kaur, the petitioner filed an application for being brought on the record to continue the revision petition. The Financial Commissioner rejected the application and consigned the revision petition to the record room without deciding the same on merit vide order dated November 4, 1974, (Annexure P-2). The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased the land and consequently he was entitled to be impleaded as a petitioner in place of Smt. Sohinder Kaur who died on May 22, 1974. In support of his contention he had placed reliance on Bakhtawar Singh and others v. Nirmal Singh and others, 1973 PunLJ 154 and Dharam Chand and others v. Ram Chand and others, 1972 74 PunLR 56. In Bakhtawar Singh's case , it was observed by Pandit, J. that the provisions of Order 22, rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure, do not compel an assignee to make an application in that behalf, but if he chooses to do so, the application should ordinarily be granted unless there are some exceptional grounds for rejecting it. The learned Judge further held that no complications can arise if the petitioners are impleaded as parties because they would not be allowed to raise defences, which were not open to their transferors. Similar view was taken by Harbans Singh, C.J. in Dharam Chand's case . I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. The petitioner was entitled to become a party to the proceedings after the death of Smt. Sohinder Kaur. In my view, he should have been impleaded as such, if some new pleas become open to respondent No. 1, the same may be raised before the Financial Commissioner.