JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. 

CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION:-

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, whereby an application filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3/respondent No.2 and 3 for striking off appearance of defendant No.1/petitioner as well as written statement filed by defendant No.1/petitioner has been allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner is defendant No.1 in the suit and respondent No.1-Sukhdev Singh had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.03.2002. It is submitted that the present contesting respondent Nos.2 and 3 are defendant Nos.2 and 3, who as per their case, had sale deed dated 21.07.2003 in their favour from the present petitioner. It is submitted that since all the three defendants were proceeded against ex-parte, thus, an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 02.04.2008 was passed. It is further submitted that thereafter, defendant Nos.2 and 3/respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the said ex-parte judgment and decree, which was dismissed by the trial Court but the appeal filed therefrom was allowed and it was specifically observed in para 14 of the order dated 17.07.2017 that the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2008 was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court, where both the parties were directed to appear.

3. It is submitted that since the entire judgment and decree dated 02.04.2008 was set aside, thus, the petitioner appeared and he was permitted to join the proceedings on 01.09.2023. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not appear on 06.09.2023 and was again proceeded against ex-parte but immediately thereafter, on 12.09.2023, the petitioner appeared through his counsel and he was again allowed to join the proceedings and ex-parte proceedings qua the petitioner were set aside and the petitioner was permitted to file written statement dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure P-7), which was duly filed by the petitioner and issues were framed. It is argued that none of the orders, more so, order dated 01.09.2023 as well as order dated 12.09.2023 were challenged by any of the parties and thus, the same have attained finality.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner had cross-examined the witnesses of the plaintiff and had even tendered his affidavit as Ex.DW1/A when the application was filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 to strike out the presence of the petitioner, as well as his written statement, his cross-examination of PW1 and his affidavit Ex.DW1/A. It is submitted that the said application has been illegally allowed vide impugned order. It is argued that it is a matter of settled law that the principle of resjudicata/constructive resjudicata even applies to orders passed in the same proceedings and once the petitioner was permitted to join the proceedings and file his written statement and the said order has attained finality, it does not lie in the mouth of defendant Nos.2 and 3 to subsequently file the said application.

5. It is also submitted that once a judgment and decree is set aside, then every party, more so, ones who are defendants, would have a right to participate in the proceedings. It is submitted that the application filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 is not filed under any provision of law and is completely misconceived and passing of the impugned order on the said application has created an anomalous situation i.e., the decree with respect to specific performance is held to be binding upon defendant No.1, but not on defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are the purchasers from defendant No.1. It is submitted that as per the earlier decree dated 02.04.2008, defendant No.1 was required to execute the sale deed in pursuance