KAILASH CHAND Vs. BRIJ MOHAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is placed on the application filed for vacation of ad interim stay granted on 25.8.1999. To avoid duplication of the arguments and to save the valuable and precious judicial time of the Court, on the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The revision petition is directed against the order of the learned trial Court dated 5.8.1999 passed on the application of the applicant-non-petitioner No. 13. The applicant-non-petitioner No. 13 filed on application under Order 22, Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of the CPC stating therein that the disputed property has been sold by the plaintiff to the applicant by a registered sale deed dated 26.6.1998 and, as such, she became the owner of the property and has prayed for deletion of the name of the plaintiffs and to implead her in the suit in their place. That application has been allowed and I do not find any illegality in this order of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners submits that in the absence of the original plaintiffs they will not be able to prove their case. This is wholly irrelevant as the defendants- petitioners are to prove their own case by producing their evidence. Otherwise also the plaintiffs are not objecting this application nor they filed the revision petition. In my opinion, the learned trial Court has not committed any error muchless any material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order which calls for interference of this Court.

(3.) As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs which quantified to Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. two thousand only). It is to be paid personally to the applicant non-petitioner No. 13 by an A/c payee cheque/DD/Pay Order.