****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION

Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, respondents No.4 to 11 had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants/respondents No.1 to 3 from blocking any portion of passage measuring 20' x 304' approx. It is stated that they be provided passage leading from the public road to land, which was comprised in Khasra No.2283 min (0- 19), (Khewat No.2035, Khatauni No.10339; Khasra No.2283 min (1-18) Khewat No. 2037 Khatauni No.10341 and Khasra No.2219/2 min, situated in Patti Mehna, near Phase-III Green City/ residential colony, Bathinda. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the present petitioner had purchased the entire holding of the plaintiffs vide six sale deeds i.e. 19.12.2024 (Annexures P-3 & P-4), 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-5), 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-6), 20.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) and 02.07.2025 (Annexure P-8). It is further submitted that since the petitioner had purchased the entire share of the plaintiffs and also had substantial interest in the dispute, thus, the petitioner had moved an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of leave/permission of the Court to continue with the suit and for impleading the petitioner as plaintiff, being assignee and transferee during the pendency of the suit. It is stated that the said application has been dismissed by the trial Court on surmises and conjectures and the same is in violation of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Amit Kumar Shaw and another Vs. Farida Khatoon and another”, reported as (2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 403. It is further submitted that the application filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, on the other hand, has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner is also seeking to be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which cannot be permitted as the petitioner is a lis pendens purchaser and cannot be made a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have already been following up the case and the case is presently listed for the evidence of the plaintiffs and thus, the impleadment of the petitioner would unnecessarily delay the proceedings. It is argued that the impugned order has been rightly passed and the same deserves to be upheld and at any rate, the petitioner can only join as a party from the present stage of the suit and should be bound by the pleadings which have already been made in the suit. It is submitted that the petitioner is seeking to substitute the plaintiffs which is not permissible as the plaintiffs are already following up the case and are leading their evidence.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 11

Learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 11/plaintiffs has submitted that the plaintiffs have no objection if the petitioner is either impleaded as party or is substituted in place of the plaintiffs as they have sold their entire interest to the petitioner.

ARGUMENTS IN REBUTTAL

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted that in view of the strong objections raised by the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents No.1 to 3, the petitioner would be satisfied in case it is impleaded as plaintiff No.9 and has also submitted that it would join the proceedings from the stage at which the case had already reached and has prayed that the memo of par