BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, legal heirs of Bachan Singh had filed a suit against Bhag Singh, which was decreed on 14.6.2000. After the decree, the sale deed was executed not only in favour of the legal heirs of Bachan Singh but on their asking, it was executed in favour of one Tejinder Singh and Avtar Singh. After having become owner of the property in dispute by way of sale, they filed a suit for possession and during the pendency of the suit, by separate sale deeds, legal heirs of Bachan Singh as well as Tejinder Singh and Avtar Singh sold the property in dispute to Mandir Singh and Jasmeer Singh. Thereafter, Mandir Singh and Jasmeer Singh filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for substitution in place of legal heirs of Bachan Singh as the rights in the property in dispute were assigned to them. The said application was allowed on the statement made by legal heirs of Bachan Singh. Accordingly, Mandir Singh and Jasmer Singh were substituted in the suit for possession but later on the legal heirs of Bachan Singh filed an application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC to pursue the litigation and to transpose them as defendants. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court by the impugned order which has been assailed before his Court by way of this revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Roshan Lal and others Vs. Manmohan Chopra : 1971 AIR (Delhi) 201, to contend that even after substitution right to contest by original party would still be there. He has submitted that if Mandir Singh and Jasmeer Singh collude with the defendants, then right of the plaintiff would be seriously prejudiced, therefore, they should be there in the suit to protect their interest. It is submitted that they cannot lead evidence as the facts are within the knowledge of the applicants/petitioners.

(3.) IT is to be borne in mind that the petitioners/legal heirs of Bachan Singh had become owner of the property in dispute on the basis of a decree of specific performance which was passed in their favour. They filed suit for possession and during the pendency of the suit, vide separate sale deeds, they transferred their right, title and interest in the suit land. To my mind, once they have lost interest in the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit and also suffered a statement when the application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC was filed, they cannot be allowed to pursue this application and be impleaded as party. The judgment which relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is distinguishable on the fact and does not improve their case.