GURBAX SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the trial Court dated April 29, 1981, whereby the application filed on behalf of Gurcharan Singh and Surjit Singh, respondents Nos. 4 and 5, for impleading them as parties to the suit, was allowed.

(2.) Gurbax Singh, plaintiff-petitioner, filed a suit for the grant of a permanent injunction against the Union of India and its Tax Recovery Officer, to the effect that the Tax Recovery Officer should not sell or proceed with the sale, for ever, of ahata (bagal) in which some construction of rooms was going on because the said building and the vacant site appurtenant thereto had been taken on lease for 99 days, vide registered lease deed dated March 13, 1975 from Mal Singh (the deceased owner) through his son and mukhtar-a-am Bhopinder Singh, respondent No. 3. The suit was filed on March 29, 1958. During the pendency of the suit, an ad interim injunction was passed by the trial Court to the effect that the auction may take place, but the same will not be confirmed. Thus, the sale took place on March 31, 1978 and the applicants, Gurcharan Singh and Surjit Singh, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were the auction purchasers. They deposited the one-fourth auction money, but the sale could not be confirmed in their favour because of the ad interim injunction order passed by the trial Court. The suit remained pending in the trial Court for a long time and many witnesses were examined on both sides. It was on February 22, 1981, that the application under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), was moved by Gurcharan Singh and Surjit Singh, respondents, for impleading them as parties to the suit. The application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that they had no right to be impleaded as parties to the suit because the auction had taken place during the pendency of the suit and thus on the principle of lis pendens, they were neither necessary parties nor proper parties to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. However, the trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the impleading of the applicants as the parties to the suit would not change the scope and the nature of the suit and that the addition of the new parties was consistent with the scope of enquiry as necessitated in the suit. It was also observed that the joining of the applicants as the parties to the suit was necessary to completely and effectually dispose of the controversy in the pending suit. However, nothing had been stated as to the delay, i.e., why the applicants could not file the application earlier when they had the knowledge of the pendency of the suit much earlier. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the trial Court allowing the applicants to be impleaded as parties to the suit, the plaintiff-petitioner has come up in revision in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in view of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter called the Act), no person was entitled to be added as a party to the suit if he had acquired any right or interest during the pendency of the suit. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Gurdev Singh and Another v. Mukand Singh and Others, C.R. No. 1815 of 1980 decided on January 28, 1981, by Surinder Singh J., and also on Kedarnath Lal v. Sheonarain, 1970 AIR(SC) 1717 wherein it has been held that the principle of lis pendens was applicable to Court-sales also. It was further contended that the applicants had the knowledge of the pendency of the suit when the sale in their favour was not confirmed because of the ad interim injunction order passed by the trial Court. In spite of this, they never came forwarded to be impleaded as parties to the suit at the earliest opportunity. How, when voluminous evidence has been led, the applicants cannot be allowed to be added as parties to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code particularly when they had acquired the rights during the pendency of the suit and their title was not complete as yet unless the sale was confirmed in their favour. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was a matter of judicial discretion which has been exercised by the trial Court and this Court will not interfere with the same in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, 1958 AIR(SC) 886