JOGINDER SINGH Vs. KASHMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 6th of January, 2009 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur dismissing the application of the petitioner-Joginder Singh and proforma respondents Natha Singh and Baldev Singh under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading them as defendants in the suit for possession of the land measuring 40 kanals by way of specific performance of an agreement and in the alternative suit for recovery of Rs. 1,70,000/-.

(2.) IN the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, it was averred that since the petitioner and proforma respondents (herein after referred as applicants) purchased the suit property from the defendants vide sale deed dated 10.05.2006. As such they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice. The decision of the suit would directly affect their rights, therefore, they are necessary parties.

(3.) IT may be observed that the agreement to sell on the basis of which the suit was filed by the plaintiff is dated 01.12.2004. Suit was filed on 12.01.2006. The sale was effected during the pendency of the suit on 10.05.2006 and the application was filed after the plaintiff had closed the evidence and it was fixed for defence evidence. Therefore, now, at this stage it would be futile to implead the applicants as defendants. Even otherwise, the subsequent purchasers having stepped into the shoes of the owner, would remain bound by the decree passed against him and they are neither proper nor necessary parties. I find support to my these observations from the judgment delivered in case Lachhami Devi v. Pala Singh, 1996(1) RRR 678 wherein it was observed as under :-