CHANDAN SINGH & ORS. Vs. PARSA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 15.5. 1995 passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Jind, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1, Rule 10 and Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for their impleadment as defendants in the suit.

(2.) By placing reliance on a decision of the Orissa High Court in Sri Nagannath Mahaprabhu Vs. Pravat Chandra Chatterjee and others, AIR 1992 Orissa 47 , learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned Senior Sub- Judge, Jind, has committed a patent illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for their impleadment as defendants. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 argued that the application filed by the petitioners lacked bona fides and therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. Shri Gupta placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Vs. Sheo Narain, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1717.

(3.) Plaintiff-respondent No. 5 filed a suit for specific performance against Parsa Ram and others in respect of the disputed property. The suit is pending in the trial Court since 4.6.1990. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 is said to have sold the suit land to defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who were ordered to be joined as defendants by the Court's order dated 14.6.1991. Thereafter, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are alleged to have transferred the property to the applicant-petitioners. This was followed by an application of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 to implead the new purchasers as party to the suit. That application was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Jind. Immediately, thereafter the applicants moved the Court for their impleadment as defendants by alleging that they had purchased the suit land from defendant Nos. 2 to 4 vide registered sale deed dated 28.2.1992 and they are in possession of the suit land. Petitioners claimed that being bona fide purchasers of the property, they were necessary parties to the suit and, therefore, the Court should order their impleadment as defendants.