Gian Chand Vs. Sher Singh and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1058126
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnDec-06-2012
AppellantGian Chand
RespondentSher Singh and Others
Excerpt:
cr no.6602 of 2011 (o&m) 1 in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh cr no.6602 of 2011 (o&m) date of decision:06. 12.2012 gian chand ..petitioner versus sher singh and others ..respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice rajan gupta present: mr.sanjay majithia, sr.advocate, with mr.vikram singh, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.n.s.shekhawat, advocate, for respondents no.1 to 5. mr.g.s.gandhi, advocate, for respondent no.6..rajan gupta, j. present revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.9.2011 passed by civil judge (senior division).kurukshetra, whereby application of gian chand (petitioner herein) for impleadment as party to the civil suit has been dismissed. learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that court below has erroneously dismissed the application as presence of petitioner before the court below is necessary to completely and effectually to adjudicate upon the issue. plea has been vehemently resisted by mr.n.s.shekhawat, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 5. mr.g.s.gandhi, learned counsel for respondent no.6 has also addressed arguments and has referred to various documents. i have heard learned counsel for the parties. cr no.6602 of 2011 (o&m) 2 suit was instituted by plaintiffs seeking possession by way of specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 9.6.2006 allegedly executed by defendant avtar singh in their favour. suit was instituted in the year 2008. instant application was moved in the year 2010 by gian chand claiming that defendant avtar singh had executed another agreement to sell in his favour on 20.4.2006 and received earnest money of rs.15,00,000/- on the same day. thereafter time for registration of sale deed was extended at the request of avtar singh. in total, avtar sngh received an amount of rs.33,00,000/- on different occasions. he having paid major portion of sale consideration and possession having been delivered to him, he was a necessary party to the suit. he also pleaded that agreement in his (gian chand's) favour being prior in time, his impleadment was necessary. this plea was resisted by the respondents. they submitted that application had been moved in collusion with avtar singh. agreement was in fact fabricated. plaintiffs being dominus litis could not be forced to implead gian chand at this stage of the suit. application for impleadment was dismissed by court below observing that gian chand could have preferred a separate suit to seek specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 20.4.2006. it further observed that plaintiffs had not sought any relief qua petitioner gian chand and it was not a case where no effective decree could be passed in his absence. admittedly, by not gian chand has preferred a separate suit against defendant avtar singh seeking specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 20.4.2006. by way of an application (cm no.24155-cii of 2012) moved before this court, order dated 6.2.2012 passed by district judge, kurukshetra, has been placed on cr no.6602 of 2011 (o&m) 3 record wherein it has been directed that both the suits would be heard by same court. in view of said order, in my considered view, necessity to implead petitioner gian chand is no longer there. in any case, suit was instituted in the year 2008 by the plaintiffs. for considerable period, petitioner neither filed a separate suit seeking specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 20.4.2006 not moved any application for impleadment. besides, it has not been shown how his presence before the court below is necessary to completely and effectually to adjudicate upon the issue. revision petition is thus without any merit and deserves dismissal. ordered accordingly. it is, however, directed that trial court may ensure that both the civil suits preferred by the petitioner and plaintiff-respondents are heard on the same date. 06.12.2012 (rajan gupta) pk judge
Judgment:

CR No.6602 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6602 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:

06. 12.2012 Gian Chand ..Petitioner versus Sher Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr.Sanjay Majithia, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5.

Mr.G.S.Gandhi, Advocate, for respondent No.6..Rajan Gupta, J.

Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.9.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division).Kurukshetra, whereby application of Gian Chand (petitioner herein) for impleadment as party to the civil suit has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that court below has erroneously dismissed the application as presence of petitioner before the court below is necessary to completely and effectually to adjudicate upon the issue.

Plea has been vehemently resisted by Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5.

Mr.G.S.Gandhi, learned counsel for respondent No.6 has also addressed arguments and has referred to various documents.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

CR No.6602 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Suit was instituted by plaintiffs seeking possession by way of specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 9.6.2006 allegedly executed by defendant Avtar Singh in their favour.

Suit was instituted in the year 2008.

Instant application was moved in the year 2010 by Gian Chand claiming that defendant Avtar Singh had executed another agreement to sell in his favour on 20.4.2006 and received earnest money of Rs.15,00,000/- on the same day.

Thereafter time for registration of sale deed was extended at the request of Avtar Singh.

In total, Avtar Sngh received an amount of Rs.33,00,000/- on different occasions.

He having paid major portion of sale consideration and possession having been delivered to him, he was a necessary party to the suit.

He also pleaded that agreement in his (Gian Chand's) favour being prior in time, his impleadment was necessary.

This plea was resisted by the respondents.

They submitted that application had been moved in collusion with Avtar Singh.

Agreement was in fact fabricated.

Plaintiffs being dominus litis could not be forced to implead Gian Chand at this stage of the suit.

Application for impleadment was dismissed by court below observing that Gian Chand could have preferred a separate suit to seek specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 20.4.2006.

It further observed that plaintiffs had not sought any relief qua petitioner Gian Chand and it was not a case where no effective decree could be passed in his absence.

Admittedly, by not Gian Chand has preferred a separate suit against defendant Avtar Singh seeking specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 20.4.2006.

By way of an application (CM No.24155-CII of 2012) moved before this court, order dated 6.2.2012 passed by District Judge, Kurukshetra, has been placed on CR No.6602 of 2011 (O&M) 3 record wherein it has been directed that both the suits would be heard by same court.

In view of said order, in my considered view, necessity to implead petitioner Gian Chand is no longer there.

In any case, suit was instituted in the year 2008 by the plaintiffs.

For considerable period, petitioner neither filed a separate suit seeking specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 20.4.2006 not moved any application for impleadment.

Besides, it has not been shown how his presence before the court below is necessary to completely and effectually to adjudicate upon the issue.

Revision petition is thus without any merit and deserves dismissal.

Ordered accordingly.

It is, however, directed that trial court may ensure that both the civil suits preferred by the petitioner and plaintiff-respondents are heard on the same date.

06.12.2012 (RAJAN GUPTA) pk JUDGE