Bench: Mittal L N
Issue:
The petitioner challenges the order passed by Trial court by filing a revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution in High Court.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs/Respondents had possession of land which under the dispute by pre-emption of sale to the Petitioner/defendant.
- A suit was filed, when plaintiff came to know that the land was sold to M/s. Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd.
- Trial Court stated that he vendee was to be added as a defendant and amendment was to be made in the sale transaction in the plaint.
- Therefore a revision petition was filed in High Court as the Petitioner/defendant was aggrieved by the judgment of Trial Court.
- If transferee is not impleaded as a party to the suit, he may also file objections in execution of the decree passed by the court.
Petitioner's Contention:
Vendee is not a necessary party during the litigation, and there is no need for him to be made as defendant. He cannot be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, instead the correct provision to implead is under Order 22 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Respondent's Contention:
Mentioning the wrong provision doesn’t mean the suit can be dismissed. Under Order 22 Rule 10, respondents have the right to implead the transferee during the litigation. The petitioner has also not properly explained what has happened against him by the impugned order to file a revision petition.
Judgment:
The petition was dismissed as there was no merits in the review petition.
"I find no infirmity, much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court so as to call interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed." said the Punjab-Haryana High Court.
