Gurdeep Singh And Another vs M/S Duke International Private … on 18 December, 2009

C.R. No. 7556 of 2009                                            [1]




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                              CHANDIGARH.

                               C.R. No. 7556 of 2009

                               Date of Decision: December 18, 2009



Gurdeep Singh and another

                                     .....Petitioners

            Vs.

M/s Duke International Private Limited and others

                                     .....Respondents


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

                        -.-

Present:-   Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

                  -.-



M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Vide impugned order dated January 13, 2009, the trial Court

has allowed the application of plaintiff- respondent No.1 under Order 1

Rule 10 CPC and impleaded the present petitioners as defendants in a suit

for specific performance on the basis of agreements of sale filed against

defendants No.2 to 8.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had

purchased the property in dispute from Pritam Kaur- respondent No.8
C.R. No. 7556 of 2009 [2]

(defendant No.7 before the trial Court), after her title was adjudicated upon

on March 24, 1999 by a judgment of High Court in RSA No. 1618 of 1982.

It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioners having become owners by way of registered sale deeds dated

March 24, 1999, the claim of the plaintiff to challenge the said sale deeds

has become barred by limitation and that the rights of the parties will be

governed by the principle of lis pendense, as such the impugned order is bad

in law.

After hearing counsel for the petitioners and going through the

facts and circumstances of this case, it is apparent that defendant No.7

Pritam Kaur had sold the subject matter of the suit for specific performance

by sale deeds dated March 24, 1999 whereas the suit had been filed by

respondent No.1 for specific performance of the agreements of the year

1982 on June 2, 1999. Defendant No.7 remained mum regarding the sale

having been made by her with regard to the suit property even while

contesting the application for ad-interim injunction. The said conduct is

indicative of the malafide intention of the seller in keeping respondent No.1

and the Court in dark regarding the sale deed having been executed by her.

The Court below while allowing the application of the plaintiff- respondent

No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has observed that the purchasers in said

circumstances are necessary parties as they are going to be directly affected

by any judgment and decree which may ultimately be passed in the present

suit and even otherwise the validity and legality of the sale deeds in favour

of the petitioners will have to be adjudicated upon.

C.R. No. 7556 of 2009 [3]

Counsel for the petitioners has cited Swaran Singh Vs. The

Punjab Kesari, 2002 (3) RCR (Civil) 778 to contend that amendment or

substitution of parties by impleadment cannot be allowed if the claim

against the party sought to be impleaded had become hopelessly barred time

barred.

I have considered the facts and circumstances of the said case.

There is no dispute regarding the said proposition of law but in the present

case, the plaintiff- respondent No.1 has raised a plea that the sale deeds

dated March 24, 1999 had been kept secret from the Court or from the

contesting parties with a motive to play fraud. The said plea is to be

considered on the basis of the evidence produced before the Court. In case

the circumstances of alleged fraud and intentional concealment are proved

then the ratio of Swaran Singh’s case (supra) cited by counsel for the

petitioners will be absolutely inapplicable.

Counsel has also cited Hari Singh Vs. Dalip Singh, 2002 (3)

RCR (Civil) 49 on the point that belated claim cannot be allowed to be

inserted by way of amendment.

The fraud alleged by the plaintiff- respondent No.1 will vitiate

the sale established as such this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the

case.

The impugned order is a well reasoned order not warranting

any interference.

Dismissed.

C.R. No. 7556 of 2009 [4]

It is made clear that this order will not, in any manner,

prejudice the rights of the petitioners to raise the plea of limitation etc.

Nothing said in the order will affect the rights of the parties at the time of

adjudication of the matter on merits.

December 18, 2009                                  (M.M.S.BEDI)
 sanjay                                              JUDGE