GAJRAJ Vs. KARAMJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner Gajraj for setting aside the order dated 12.06.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc)-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. III, Faridabad, whereby his application for setting aside the order dated 05.04.2006, permitting appellant Karamjeet Singh (respondent herein) to withdraw his appeal; and further for allowing the petitioner to join as appellant in the appeal and deciding the same on merits, has been dismissed.

(2.) FROM the facts stated in the impugned order, it appears that in the year 1989, Jai Narain Yadav, plaintiff instituted a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against Chet Ram and Smt. Shakuntla Devi, who were impleaded as defendants No. 1 and 2 in the said suit. On 02.04.1990, defendants Chet Ram and Smt. Shakuntla Devi appeared and filed the written statement. Subsequently, Jai Narain Yadav died and his legal representatives were impleaded as plaintiffs. In the year 1993, an application was filed by the legal representatives of plaintiff Jai Narain Yadav under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Karamjeet Singh as defendant No. 3 during the pendency of the suit. The defendants Chet Ram and Smt. Shakuntla Devi suffered a decree dated 01.08.1990 in favour of defendant No. 3. The said application was allowed and Karamjeet Singh was impleaded as defendant No. 3. Karamjeet Singh also filed written statement and contested the suit. During the pendency of the said suit, Karamjeet Singh sold the suit property in favour of Rohtash and Smt. Anguri vide registered sale deed dated 05.04.2000. It is pertinent to mention here that the purchasers lis pendence i.e. Rohtash and Smt. Anguri did not file an application for impleading them as party. Ultimately, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available on the record, the suit of the plaintiff Jai Narain Yadav was decreed on 18.11.2002.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has purchased the property vide registered sale deed dated 02.01.2004 from Rohtash and Smt. Anguri during the pendency of the appeal, whose names were mentioned in the revenue record therefore, he was a bona fide purchaser of the suit land. Therefore, the first Appellate Court should have set aside the order dated 05.04.2006 whereby the appeal filed by Karamjeet Singh was dismissed as withdrawn and the petitioner should have been permitted to contest the said appeal on merits. Counsel for the petitioner also argued that the first Appellate Court has also erred in law while holding that the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the said order is not within limitation. He also submitted that he has also filed an application for condonation of delay for setting aside the said order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first Appellate Court is illegal, wrong and liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to become an appellant in the appeal filed by Karamjeet Singh and also entitled to pursue the same on merits.