The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights of assignees during the pendency of a suit are governed by the concept of lis pendens and relief should not be denied to a party simply on the ground of wrong mentioning of section in the application.

JUDGMENT :

P.S. RANA, J.

1. Application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 CPC by applicant namely Shri Vishal Chaddha for impleading (1) Dinesh Kumar son of Yadvender Kumar (2) Shri Vishal Chaddha son of Shri Banwari Lal Chaddha (3) Madho Prasad son of Shri Govind Ram as co-defendants in civil suit No. 4 of 2007 titled Raja Ashok Pal Sen vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra and others.

Brief facts of the case

2. Raja Ashok Pal Sen filed civil suit No. 4 of 2007 titled Raja Ashok Pal Sen vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra and others pleaded therein that decree of declaration be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants to the effect that plaintiff is absolute owner in possession of suit property on the basis of settlement deed dated 10.11.2000 placed on record and on the basis of acknowledgement made by co-defendant No.1 in her affidavit dated 11.5.2000. It is pleaded that defendants have no right title or interest in suit property and right title or interest of defendants in suit property ceased after execution of settlement deed and affidavit. Additional relief of declaration also sought to the effect that sale deed dated 24.4.2008 registered in the office of Registrar at Sr. No. 251 in favour of co- defendants Nos. 9 to 11 with respect to suit property is illegal null and void and did not effect right title or interest of plaintiff in the suit property. It is pleaded that plaintiff continuous to be absolute owner in possession of suit property on the basis of settlement deed dated 11.5.2000 followed by affidavit dated 11.5.2000. It is pleaded that defendants be restrained from interfering in any manner in possession of suit property. It is pleaded that co-defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have illegally wrongly and without jurisdiction manipulated cancellation of mutation No. 146 dated 18.8.2000 and it is pleaded that order of cancellation of mutation dt. 31.8.2005 is also illegal without jurisdiction and did not effect the rights of plaintiff in suit property. Alternative additional relief also sought by plaintiff to the effect that sale deed executed by co- defendant No. 1 in favour of co-defendants Nos. 4 to 11 with respect to suit property is also illegal null and void and is not binding upon the plaintiff and prayer also sought that defendants Nos. 4 to 11 be directed to re-transfer the suit property in favour of plaintiff. It is pleaded that on the failure of co-defendants Nos. 4 to 11 to retransfer the property in favour of plaintiff decree of injunction be also passed in favour of plaintiff along with costs of suit.

3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of contesting defendants and issues framed in Civil Suit No. 4 of 2007 on 29.3.2011 and additional issues also framed on 20.3.2012. Thereafter as per request of learned Advocates civil suit No. 4 of 2007 referred to mediator for settlement of dispute inter se the parties. In the meanwhile present application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed.

4. There is recital in OMP No. 24 of 2015 that Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad are interested and proper party in suit and they be impleaded as codefendants in civil suit No. 4 of 2007. It is pleaded that proposed co-defendants have entered into an agreement dated 17.5.2014 relating to suit property and proposed codefendants have already paid amount to the tune of Rupees three crores twenty five lacs to co-defendant No.1 namely Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra relating to suit property and further pleaded that balance amount to the tune of Rs. 75 lacs (seventy five lacs) will be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. It is pleaded that Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad are assignees during pendency of C.S. No. 4 of 2007 and interest in suit property has devolved upon them and they be impleaded as co-defendants No. 12 to 14 respectively in CS No. 4 of 2007. Prayer for acceptance of application sought.

5. Per contra response filed on behalf of co-defendant No.