Hateshwari Educational Society vs Bharat Kumar and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 17.8.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi allowing the application filed by the plaintiff/appellant whereby the present petitioner has been arrayed as respondent in the lis.

The admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge(Junior Division), Mandi being Civil Suit No. 98 of 1995 in which he challenged the sale made by defendant No. 2 Smt. Shakuntla Devi in favour of defendant No. 1 Karam Chand on various grounds. It is not necessary to go into all the grounds. However, the fact remains that this suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Mandi on 1.8.2006. Thereafter an appeal was filed in the court of learned District Judge which was transferred to the court of learned Additional District Judge, Mandi. During the pendency of this appeal, defendant No. 1 Karam Chand sold the suit property to the present petitioner Hateshwari Educational Society. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying that Karam Chand and Hateshwari Educational Society be restrained from raising any construction on the suit land or changing the nature of the suit land. This application was contested by Karam Chand and the learned lower Appellate Court had passed an order directing respondent No. 1 Karam Chand to maintain status quo qua the property in question till the next date of hearing. Rightly, no order was passed against Hateshwari Educational Society since it was not a party to the proceedings. Thereafter the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed in which it was alleged that the suit land had been sold in favour of the Society and, therefore, it was a necessary party to the proceedings. This application was opposed by Shri Karam Chand. It was, however, admitted that Shri Karam Chand had sold this land to Hateshwari Education Society vide sale deed duly registered on 27.3.2009.

It is obvious that the petitioner Society has purchased the suit land from Karam Chand after the filing of the appeal, therefore, it is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings, since any adjudication in the appeal may affect the rights of the petitioner Society. On behalf of the petitioner Society it is next contended that it should be given an opportunity to file its own written statement. In my opinion this argument is totally misconceived. The petitioner society has purchased the land from Shri Karam Chand after the appeal was filed and has stepped into the shoes of respondent No. 2 and it shall have to sink and swim on the basis of the written statement of Shri Karam Chand and has no right to file and independent written statement.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. No costs.