MEHAR SINGH Vs. HARDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition filed against the order dated 25.8.2003 of the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Jagadhri, an application was made for stay. Notice of motion had been issued. An order was made by this Court that the trial Court shall not pass the final order. The respondents then filed an application for vacation of that order. Vide impugned order dated 25.8.2003, the Civil Judge (SD), Jagadhri had declined the request of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint and for impleading the other persons i.e. the persons who had either got executed sale deeds or lease deeds during the pendency of suit in their favour. The suit was originally filed in the year 1982 and somehow remained pending in various courts and Revision Petition bearing No. 2623 of 1992 had also been filed. This Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta) vide order dated 7.1.2003 dismissed the revision petition against the order declining the request of the petitioner for additional evidence and had also directed that the case being old one, the trial Court should expedite the proceedings and preferably within six months dispose of the case.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the pendency of the suit sale deeds and lease deeds have been executed and that the persons in whose favour such documents were executed, are necessary party and should be impleaded.

(3.) THE persons in whose favour such sale deeds and lease deeds have been executed have themselves not come before the Court to be impleaded as party. The settled principle is that any alienation during the pendency of the suit shall be hit by the principles of lis pendens. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. Revision dismissed.