SUNITA DEVI Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Sunita Devi has filed this revision petition against Pawan Kumar contesting-respondent and Smt. Pushpa Rani Bansal proforma respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 26.10.2013 passed by learned District Judge, Narnaul vide which the application of the applicant-petitioner filed under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. for being substituted as defendant-respondent being assignee/transferee was dismissed. The brief facts of the case as stated in the petition are that shop in dispute was originally owned by Madan Lal adopted son of Smt. Manbhari widow of Mangal. Tirath Ram purchased the same from Sh. Madan Lal vide sale deed dated 14.10.1976. Pawan Kumar filed a suit on 13.02.1990 titled as "Inder Naruin and Pawan Kumar v. Tirathh Ram" claiming declaration that the plaintiffs are owners of shop in dispute. The suit was decreed by learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Mohindergarh on same day on 13.02.1990. Subsequently, in family settlement, the shop was given to Smt. Pushpa Rani Bansal and a consent decree was passed. On 08.11.2002, Pawan Kumar filed present suit for declaration that he is owner of the shop in dispute on the basis of judgment and decree dated 13.02.1990 claiming that Pushpa Rani Bansal has no concern with the ownership or possession of the shop and further, judgment and decree dated 26.03.1994 passed in the civil suit in favour of the defendant is illegal, based upon fraud and misrepresentation. This suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.2011. Plaintiff-respondent filed civil appeal, in which status quo regarding possession and alienation of suit property was ordered vide order dated 29.08.2011. However, this order was conveyed to Pushpa Rani Bansal on 12.09.2011. In the meanwhile, Pushpal Rani Bansal has sold the shop in dispute to the applicant Sunita Devi vide sale deed dated 01.09.2011 registered on 02.09.2011. The applicant-petitioner filed application under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. for being substituted/impleaded as respondent in place of Pushpa Rani Bansal in the appeal on the basis of sale deed. Vide impugned order, learned first appellate Court dismissed the application.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued to contesting-respondent, who appeared through his counsel and contested the petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.