KRISHNA DEVI Vs. PURAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to the order dated 29.8.2013, passed by the court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners -plaintiffs for impleading Amrik Singh son of Joginder Singh, Paramjit Singh son of Som Nath and Punjab Agricultural Development Bank, Rajpura as defendants in the suit, was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was filed seeking declaration that the plaintiffs are owners to the extent of 1/4h share in the suit property. Challenge was also made to sale deed dated 19.1.2006 executed by respondents No. 1 to 5 in favour of respondents No. 6 and 7 and sale deed dated 25.1.2007 executed by respondents No. 6 and 7 in favour of respondents No. 8 and 9. The suit was filed on 24.2.2010. As during the pendency of the suit, respondents No. 8 and 9 sold the property vide sale deed dated 20.10.2010 to Amrik Singh and Paramjit Singh, which was mortgaged by Paramjit Singh with Punjab Agricultural Development Bank, the transaction having taken place during the pendency of the suit, to avoid any future complication, they were sought to be impleaded as parties to the suit. The learned court below had dismissed the application on an erroneous premise that in the jamabandi for the year 2006 -2007, annexed by the petitioners -plaintiffs with the suit, the factum of sale of land to Amrik Singh and Paramjit Singh was already mentioned, hence, they should have been impleaded as defendants when the suit was initially filed. The suit was filed on 24.2.2010. The sale deed itself was registered on 20.10.2010, hence, there was no question of production of jamabandi by the petitioners with the suit recording transaction of sale in remarks column. The learned court below had wrongly perused the jamabandi produced by the respondents -defendants, which contained that entry in the remarks column, hence, the order deserves to be set aside.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 8 and 9 submitted that once the petitioners were aware of the factum of sale of the property in dispute to Amrik Singh and Paramjit Singh, they should have been impleaded as party in the suit, when the same was initially filed. The object is merely to delay the proceedings.