BALBIR SINGH Vs. BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, petitioner-plaintiff challenges order dated 24.05.2014 (Annexure-P8) whereby the application under Order I Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure read with Order XXII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment of subsequent vendees during the pendency of the suit, was allowed.

(2.) It is claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff that since the applicant-defendants, now (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) had knowledge of the injunction order restraining the defendant i.e. their vendor from alienating the suit property, they are not the bonafide purchasers and thus are not necessary parties before the Lower Court for adjudication of the matter in controversy, which relates to specific performance of the agreement dated 31.10.2008 against the original defendant (now respondent no. 1). Support has been sought from Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 308; Thomson Press (India) Ltd Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. and others and Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. and others, 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 875.

(3.) Injunction order dated 30.11.2009, which has been sought to be used against the respondent-defendant no. 1 to the prejudice of respondents no. 2 and 3 reveals that it was passed in the absence of original respondent-defendant Baldev Singh as he had been proceeded against exparte on 14.11.2009. Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff though has urged that when the subsequent purchasers, i.e., respondents no. 2 and 3 came to know about the pendency of the proceedings qua the property purchased by them, they had moved an application for their impleadment as parties to such litigation against grant of which application, now challenge has been made by the petitioner-plaintiff. There is nothing to show that the vendor-defendant (now respondent no. 1) had any knowledge of the injunction order of 30.11.2009.