Niranjan Singh vs Union of India (UOI) and others

D.V. Sehgal, J.—The Appellant herein was admittedly not a party to the suit in the trial court. The suit was filed by Raghunandan and Ram Chander Plaintiff-Respondent for a declaration that they are the owners of the suitland or such portion of it to which they are entitled. Union of India through its Secretary in the Rehabilitation Department and the State of Haryana besides some other Defendants were arrayed as Defendants to the said suit. The suit was filed on 3/1/1966 and the same was registered on 5/1/1966. It was during the pendency of the suit that on 7/1/1966 the suit land was put to auction by the Rehabilitation Department and it was allegedly purchased by the Appellant herein. This sale being during the pendency of the suit the Appellant in his capacity as vendee was bound by the ultimate decision of the suit in which the Union of India was arrayed as Defendant He did not take any step for being brought on record as assignee from Union of Iadia when the suit was pending in the trial court. The suit was ultimately dismissed by the trial court. On appeal by the aforesaid Plaintiffs and the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and their suit was decreed on 18/5/1977. The Union of India and the State of Haryana then filed a Regular Second Appeal No. 1301 of 1977 in this Court which was decided by me on February 10, 1986. The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 18/5/1977 passed in first appeal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned District Judge for its fresh decision on merits After remand when the appeal was pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, the Appellant herein moved the applications. The application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C., contained an averment to the effect that some other person by the name of Naranjan Singh had been impleaded as Defendant No. 19 but he was never impleaded. The name of his father is Mam Sukh Raj and Defendant No. 19 may be some other person. He prayed that he shall be vitally effected by the decision of the appeal. Therefore, he should be impleaded as a Defendant to the suit which should then be remanded to the trial court. He should be allowed to produce his evidence in defence and the matter should be decided thereafter. This application was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated September 5,1986 which elaborately sets out the reasons for declining the same. The other application moved by him was for setting aside the ex parte proceedings against Respondent No. 19 alleging that he had not been duly served. Apparently the averment made in this application is in direct contradiction of which is stated in the application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., and was, therefore, not maintainable. The Appellant being an assignee from the Union of India during the pendency of the suit is bound by the decree ultimately passed by the learned Additional District Judge which has now been appealed against.

The Union of India or the State of Haryana in the Rehabilitation Department Have not chosen to file any appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge which is sought to be impugned through the present appeal. The Appellant in his capacity as an assignee from the Government is to stand or fall by the result of the litigation which was being contested by his vendors. Therefore, the present appeal on his behalf is not at all maintainable which is consequently dismissed in limine.