CM(M) No.749/2013 Page 1 of 3

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ C.M.(M) No.749/2013 & C.M.No.11538/2013 (Stay)

%

17^th November, 2014

SH. J.S. ARORA

......Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate.

VERSUS

SH. OM PRAKASH ARYA & ORS.

...... Respondents

Through:

None

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. No one appears for the contesting respondent no.1/plaintiff.

2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the

petitioner impugns the order of the trial court dated 30.5.2013 by which the

trial court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for being

impleaded under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as

a defendant in the suit. The petitioner claims that he is a purchaser pendente

lite of the suit property admeasuring 100 sq. yds. bearing no.VB-103,

Virender Nagar, New Delhi.

2014:DHC:6111

CM(M) No.749/2013 Page 2 of 3

3. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the suit property from

Sh.Surender Kumar Mahajan on 31.5.1999 after paying a sale consideration

of Rs.2 lacs and the usual documents being the Agreement to Sell, General

Power of Attorney, Will etc. were executed and the same were also duly

registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar. The petitioner claims that he

received the original title deed of the suit property on execution of the

documents dated 31.5.1999. The petitioner also claims that he is very much

a necessary party in this suit because in his absence, his valuable rights in

the suit property will stand affected if the suit for specific performance is

decreed.

4(i)

The trial court has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court

reported as Suraj Lamp & Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. JT

2011 (12) SC 564 to dismiss the application on the ground that the Supreme

Court in the case of Suraj Lamp (supra) has held that documents such as the

present being the Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Will etc.

executed on 31.5.1999 cannot be looked at.

(ii)

I am afraid the trial court has totally misread the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp (supra)because the said judgment

applies with respect to documentations executed post 24.9.2001 from when

2014:DHC:6111

CM(M) No.749/2013 Page 3 of 3

Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was amended along with

other related sections of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 etc. I have had also an

occasion to examine this aspect in the case of Sh.Ramesh Chand Vs. Suresh

Chand & Anr. in RFA No.358/2000 decided on 9.4.2012: 2012 (188) DLT

538, wherein I have referred to the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of Suraj Lamp (supra) and held that the said judgment

protects the rights given under the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney,

Will etc. when the same have been executed prior to 24.9.2001.

5. In fact the petitioner is very much a necessary party because he is a

purchaser pendente lite of the suit property, and therefore Order XXII Rule

10 CPC applies read with ratio of the judgment in the case of Dhurandhar

Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and others AIR 2001 SC 2552,

which states that a person upon whom a property devolves during the

pendency of the suit can always seek his impleadment in order to protect his

interest and to prevent a fraud against him.

6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.5.2013 is set aside

and the petitioner will be added as a defendant in the suit. Parties are left to

bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA,