Dinesh Goyal And Another vs Sandeep Batra And Others on 26 February, 2009

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH
                                          C.R. No. 1004 of 2009 (O&M)
                                          Date of Decision: 26.2.2009

Dinesh Goyal and another
                                                    ....Petitioners
           Versus
Sandeep Batra and others
                                                     ...Respondents

CORAM : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Present:- Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate
for the petitioners.

RAJESH BINDAL J

The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 2.2.2009
passed by learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioners
for being impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by respondent No.1 against
respondents No.2 and 3 was allowed on the ground that the petitioners have
purchased the property from respondents No.2 and 3 during the pendency of the
suit. The suit was filed by respondent No.1 against respondents No.2 and 3 for
permanent injunction. The claim was made by the petitioners to be impleaded
as party to the suit on the ground that during the pendency of suit they had
purchased the property in question.

The learned Court below allowed the prayer of petitioners for being
impleaded as defendants in the suit. However, as the petitioners had merely
stepped into the shoes of respondents No.2 and 3 from whom they have
purchased the property they were not granted any liberty to file fresh written
statement and were only permitted to continue with the case from the stage, the
order was passed. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that
once they have been impleaded as party to the suit they should be permitted to
file written statement putting their own stand on record is totally misconceived as
otherwise also the principle of lis-pendise would have applied. It was a sale of
property by respondents No.2 and 3/defendants in the suit to the petitioners
during the pendency of the suit. In case the petitioners claim that they have
been defrauded by respondents No.2 and 3 by not disclosing the factum of
pending litigation regarding the suit property, they can have their remedies
against their vendors otherwise also it was simply a suit for injunction.

Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition
and the same is dismissed.

                                                  (RAJESH BINDAL)
26.2.2009                                               JUDGE
Reema