High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 11 P&H CK 0115

Arvind Kumar vs Rakesh Kumar and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 1 November 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 7028 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 351 words

Alok Singh, J.

1.

Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, thereby rejecting the

application of the third party/Petitioner seeking impleadment as one of the Defendant in a suit under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure

2.

The brief facts of the present case are that Plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of contract against the Defendant - Madan Lal son of

Babu Ram, who is father of the present Petitioner - third party. In the suit, third party - Petitioner herein had filed his own affidavit as one of the witness being DW2. After long pendency of the suit, third party - Petitioner herein moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with the

changed name as "Arvind Kumar" saying that he has purchased the property from his father - Defendant on 02.04.2000. In fact admittedly present

Petitioner has filed his own affidavit, as DW2 before the learned Trial Court being a witness of his own father i.e. Defendant, mentioning his name

as "Arvinder Kumar". While in the present application, he is alleging himself to be "Arvind Kumar" but fact remains, he himself has filed present

application, as well as, affidavit in two different names. Applying the doctrine, he who seeks equity must come with clean hands, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Moreover, once Petitioner - third party himself has appeared as a witness and has not disclosed the alleged sale deed in his favour by the Defendant, now he cannot be permitted to be impleaded to say that Defendant has sold this property in favour of his own son on 02.04.2000. It seems that alleged sale deed by the Petitioner is a collusive and bogus document. Had there been any valid sale deed in favour of the Petitioner he would have disclosed the same in his affidavit filed as a Defendant's witness. One should not be permitted to play hot and cold in one breath. Petitioner is not able to show his interest in the property in dispute.

3.

Dismissed.