AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.S.Sinha, J.—Heard Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri Dhruva Narayana, learned counsel representing the plaintiffopposite parties No. 1 and 2.
By means of this revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the ''Code'', the applicant seeks to challenge the order dated 15th October, 1990 rejecting its application for impleadment as defendant in the Original Suit No. 1563 of 1990 between opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and the defendantopposite parties No. 3, 4 and 5 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Meerut. The suit is one for injunction against the defendantopposite parties No. 3, 4 and 5 for restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffopposite parties over the vacant land of Bungalow No. 10.
The applicant sought its impleadment to the suit as defendant, principally, on the ground ".that it had entered into agreement of sale with the defendantopposite party No. 5, Smt. Prem Lata, through her attorney in respect of a part of the land in suit.
The court below has found it, as a matter of fact, that the agreement of sale relied upon by the applicant was entered into during the pendency of the suit and that it was no delivery of possession took place in pursuance of the agreement of sale. On these findings, the court below declined to grant the prayer of the applicant for being impleaded.
The Court below has rightly pointed out that the alleged agreement did not create any interest in the land in suit. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act specifically provides that a contract of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on immovable property which is subjectmatter of contract of sale.
For what has been said above, the court is clearly of the opinion that in declining to accept the prayer of the applicant for impleadment and rejecting its application therefor by the impugned order, the court below did not commit any such illegality or irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction which may warrant interference by this court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code.
The revision is totally devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed. The interim order dated 14th November, 1990 shall stand discharged. The applicant is directed to pay to the plaintiffopposite parties their costs which will include a sum of Rs. 1000 as their counsel''s fee in this court.
Revision dismissed.