PARVEEN KUMARI Vs. GANGI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.1.2000 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Barsar whereby an application moved by the Petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 22, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure and Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) in Civil Suit No. 255/97, has been dismissed.

(2.) The admitted facts of the matter are that Civil Suit No. 255/ 97 between the Plaintiff and Defendants i.e. Respondents herein (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff-Respondent and Defendants-Respondents respectively) is pending disposal in the Court of the learned Sub-Judge, Barsar. The suit has been instituted on 29-5-1997. During the pendency of the suit, Defendant Shiam Lal through his attorney sold the land in suit to the Petitioner. The Petitioner-transferee moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 and Order 22, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code to implead her as Defendant in the suit on the ground of purchase of the land by her from Defendant Shiam Lal, claiming therein that impleading her as a party to the suit was necessary in order to deside the controversy in the suit effectually and to do substantial justice in the matter. The application was opposed by the parties to the suit. The Plaintiff-Respondent in her reply raised the preliminary objection that the application is vague and does not disclose sufficient reason to implead the Petitioner as party. On merits, the sale by Defendant Shiam Lal in favour of the Petitioner was admitted, but it was averred that the sale has been effected despite stay order not to alienate the suit property and this fact was within the of the Petitioner as her husband was the attorney of the seller who executed the sale deed. It is further averred that the Petitioner is not at all a necessary party because of the alienation during the pendency of the suit. In the other reply dated 3-12-1998, it is averred that the Petitioner is not a necessary party and the application has been filed just to delay the disposal of the suit and in case the Petitioner is the affected party, she can file a separate suit. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge held that the Petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit and accordingly dismissed the application. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.