JASWINDER SINGH Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision petition is to the order dated 6.8.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala City, whereby the application under Order 22, Rule 10, C.P.C., filed by the petitioner for allowing him to file the written statement, has been dismissed.

(2.) IN brief the facts of the case are that Sohan Singh and Rajinder Singh, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.8.1994, allegedly executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in favour of the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit, Ajit Singh defendant, while appearing as D.W.2, stated that out of the total land measuring 81 Kanals 12 Marlas, he had sold the land measuring 60 Kanals 10 Marlas in favour of Smt. Gurpal Kaur vide registered sale deed dated 18.8.1999. Consequently, on the application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C., she was impleaded as defendant No. 7. In the meantime Smt. Gurpal Kaur died and her son Jaswinder Singh petitioner was impleaded as defendant No. 7 in her place. After his impleadment as defendant No. 7, Jaswinder Singh filed an application under Order 22, Rule 10, C.P.C. to enable him to file the written statement and contest the suit. The said application was declined by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala City, on the ground that he had no right to contest the suit and file a separate written statement; he being a subsequent purchaser and, thus, he would be bound by the decree that may be passed against the vendors from whom Smt. Gurpal Kaur had purchased the suit land. Now Jaswinder Singh, being the legal representative of Smt. Gurpal Kaur deceased, subsequent purchaser, has filed the present revision petition to challenge the order dated 16.8.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala City.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , Smt. Gurpal Kaur deceased had purchased a major chunk of the suit property from Ajit Singh defendant after the plaintiffs had filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.8.1994, allegedly executed by the defendants in their favour. She was the subsequent vendee and has stepped into the shoes of her vendors. She has no right to file separate written statement and to defend her case. In Jarnail Singh v. Devinder Kumar and others, 1991(2) RRR 111 (P&H) : 1991 PLJ 242, it was held by this Court that the transferee "on being impleaded as a party cannot claim any right to contest the suit by filing a separate written statement." It was further held that he "can only watch his interest along with other defendants from whom he had purchased the land." In Shree Kishan Somani v. Ram Nath and others, 1991(1) PLR 650, it has been held by this Court that "under Order 22 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. the transferees were to continue the proceedings from the stage they were impleaded as parties. No doubt the transferors could amend the written statement by showing reasonable ground. Likewise the transferees could also move an application for taking fresh pleas which transferors had not taken in the earlier written statement. From that it cannot be said that the transferees had a right to file a written statement.." In the case reported as Dhanna Singh and others v. Baljinder Kaur and others, 1997(2) RCR(Civil) 701 (SC) : AIR 1997 SC 3720, it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that a subsequent purchaser, who has been impleaded as a party, cannot get any right to lead evidence as he had stepped into shoes of first defendant who had given up right to lead evidence. In the case Smt. Sarvjeet Kaur v. Rang Lal, 1998(4) RCR(Civil) 674 (P&H) : 1999(1) CCC 310, it has been held by this Court that the suit for specific performance of the agreement is bound by the decree against the vendor and the plea that he is a bona fide purchaser without notice, is of no consequence. Similarly, in Smt. Munni Devi v. Nathu Singh and another, 1996(1) CCC 200, it has been held by the Allahabad High Court that in a suit for specific performance, the subsequent transferee, even though he obtained transfer without notice of original contract, cannot set up any right against the plaintiff. Consequently, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 16.8.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala City. The present revision petition is without any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The interim order of stay passed by this Court on 7.9.2002 stands vacated. Petition dismissed.