Omprakash And Ors vs Ramswaroop And Ors

Alok Sharma, J.

The matter comes up on an application for impleadment at the instance of one Kuber Singh Sisodia.

The case of the applicant is that the petitioner has laid a challenge to the judgment dated 18.7.2016 rendered by the Board of Revenue in terms of which the suit of the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter plaintiff) stands decreed. It has been submitted that initially the plaintiff's suit was filed on 3.9.2005 and decreed by the SDO on 20.6.2012. On appeal the RAA vide order dated 10.5.2013 remanded the matter back to the SDO. Aggrieved there against the plaintiff filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. By its impugned order dated 18.7.2016 it set aside the order of RAA passed on 10.5.2013 and sustained the judgment and decree of the SDO passed on 20.6.2012. Counsel for the applicant submitted that following the decree dated 20.6.2012 the applicant had purchased the share amongst others of the plaintiff under sale deed dated 10.7.2012 and thereafter on an application for mutation his name was recorded as the Khatedar qua the land originally with the plaintiff Ramswaroop. That order of mutation in favour of the applicant in the land record regarding the land in issue in the petition is under challenge in appeal.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that in the facts obtaining the applicant has a definite interest in the outcome of the petition relate inter alia as it does to land in his Khatedari and possession. In the event the decree dated 20.6.2012 passed by the SDO and upheld by the Board of Revenue under its judgment dated 18.7.2016 which is in challenge in this petition were to be set aside it would be determinative of the applicant's value rights. Hence the applicant be impleaded as respondent in this petition. In support of his contention, counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Limited Versus Nanak Builders And Investors Private Limited and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 397.

Mr. Bharat Vyas counsel for the petitioner opposed the application for impleadment and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarvinder Singh Versus Dalip Singh & Others, stating that the applicant being a purchaser of the land in issue during the period it was under litigation, he has no rights thereto in view of the prohibition under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and hence cannot be impleaded in this petition.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment relied by Mr. Bharat Vyas i.e. Sarvinder Singh Versus Dalip Singh (supra). It is not apposite to the facts of the case. Contrarily the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Limited Versus Nanak Builders And Investors Private Limited (supra) relied on by counsel for the applicant attracts on all fours to the instant case. Even otherwise on pure legal principle in the facts of the case, the applicant is without any doubt at least a proper party in the petition for the reason that the applicant has a definite interest in the land in issue in the petition and in his absence a complete and final decision on the issues in the petition would not be made.

The application for impleadment at the instance of Kuber Singh Sisodia is thus allowed. Amended cause title be filed within seven days.

Put up on September 11, 2019, as prayed.