The limited scope of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 and the application of the theory of lis pendens in impleading parties in civil suits.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard through Videoconferencing.

2. This misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 7.5.2019 passed by the Third Civil Judge, Class-II, Morena, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC for impleading the party as defendant/respondent in the suit has been rejected.

3. It is argued that the plaintiff/petitioner has preferred a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to title over the disputed agriculture land 1/2 part of survey No. 2979 area being 0.408 hectare situated in village Tichhola, Tehsil and District Morena. The respondent No. 1 denied the averments and filed the written statement. During the pendency of the civil suit the respondent no. 1/defendant has sold out the land to his son. The aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff when the respondent No. 1 and his son Pramod Singh came to the field and tried to take forcible possession of the crops being sown by the plaintiff saying that they have sold out the land to some other person. The son of the defendant No. 1 is not a party to the civil suit. On asking for the sale deed, neither it was shown to him nor it has been handed over to him. Therefore, two applications were filed by the plaintiff one under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the civil suit/plaint another application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC for impleading the son of the defendant No. 1 as a party to the proceedings. The learned trial Court has allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC but has rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC on the ground that there is no document on record filed by the plaintiff to demonstrate that the property has been sold out. No copy of registry is being filed. It is submitted that once the trial Court has allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 and has permitted amendment in the plaint with respect to the sale of property by sale deed in favour of son of the defendant No. 1, then rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC will create complications in the civil suit. Admittedly, the son of the defendant No. 1 has purchased the property, therefore, he being the necessary party to the proceedings, the application should have been allowed.

4. Per contra, Shri G.S. Sharma, counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 denied the contentions and has supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. It is argued that if there is any sale deed is in existence the plaintiff could have obtained the copy of the sale deed under the RTI or from the Registrar Office. But no steps were taken by him to obtain the copy. The learned trial Court has rightly considered the application and has rejected the same for want of any document in support of the averments made in the application. It is submitted that the civil suit will be governed by the theory of lis pendens. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaideep Shah v. Rashmi Shah @ Miss. Rashmi Vyas reported in 2011 (2) MPLJ 680. It is further contended that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Courts are exercising the supervisory jurisdiction and has to only see whether any procedural error has been committed by the learned trial Court while considering the applications. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of the record it is seen that the averments is being made that during the pendency of the civil suit the property is being sold by defendant no. 1 to his son by sale deed. But there is nothing on record to show that there is any sale deed executed in his favour only oral submissions are being made without there being any documentary evidence. If the pro