BHUPINDER KUMAR Vs. KULDIP SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are simple and straight. The suit land belongs to the respondents herein, namely, Smt. Dharto Devi, Smt. Pawna Devi and Kumari Swarna Devi, who are defendants before the learned trial court. They entered into an agreement of sale of this land in favour of the respondent herein, Shri Kuldeep Sharma, who is plaintiff before the learned court below. However, when the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against them, which is pending and in which an ad interim injunction order pending suit is also stated to have been issued against the defendants. However, even despite that the defendants sold the land in dispute to the petitioner herein, Shri Bhupinder Kumar, who moved the learned trial court by way of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) for being impleaded as a party to the suit being a pendente lite purchaser, which has been dismissed by the learned trial court, vide the impugned order dated 13.12.2011, which is under challenge in the present petition under Art. 227 of the constitution of India.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order under challenge.

(3.) A bare reading of the impugned order dated 13.12.2011 would go to show that the prayer of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party to the suit being the pendente lite purchaser, has been declined mainly on the ground that the defendants have sold the suit land to him in violation of the ad interim injunction order pending suit, passed by the learned trial court in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. True it is that it is not disputed before this court that the sale was effected during existence of such ad interim injunction order. Even if it was so, the defendants could be proceeded under law for disobedience of the ad interim injunction order, under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. However, the petitioner has independent right to be impleaded as a party to the suit, even despite the fact that he is a pendente lite purchaser, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case arising out of a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale or property reported as A. Nawab John and others Vs. V.N. Subramaniyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738 , vide paras 18,19,20,21 and 22 of the judgment, which are extracted below:-