2016 (1) TMI 1504 - HC - Indian Laws

Impleadment of subsequent purchaser as party to the proceeding - suit for bare injunction in respect of 4 items of the suit property - application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC to set aside the ex-parte dismissal of the suit and to restore the same - HELD THAT - One Parijathammal as plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of 4 items of property against 3 defendants. Admittedly the said Parijathammal died on 09.07.2006 and the suit was dismissed for default on 14.07.2006. Thereafter the respondent herein who is none other than the sister of the deceased plaintiff as well as the deceased first defendant/first revision petitioner filed application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC to set aside the ex-parte dismissal of the suit and to restore the same and also an application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Order 22 Rule 5 CPC to implead herself as party to the proceeding. On perusal of the plaint it is seen that the cause of action has been mentioned as The cause of action for the suit arose on 27.01.1967 when the suit property was purchased and on 17.05.2004 20.03.2005 the defendants made an attempt to trespass into the suit property . But according to the respondent/proposed party she has purchased the property only on 26.04.2006 and so as on the date of filing of the suit there is no cause of action and she was not the person in possession. But in the instant case the suit is only for bare injunction and the respondent/proposed party has purchased the 1st item of the suit scheduled property only after the filing of the suit. So the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there is no cause of action involved for the proposed party to adjudicate the suit is acceptable one. The respondent/proposed party has no locus standi to file an application to restore the suit because the respondent herein has purchased only the 1st item of the suit property. Further since the suit is for bare injunction there arose no cause of action for the proposed party because she has purchased the property only after the filing of the suit. The Trial Court without considering these aspects in proper perspective has allowed the application filed by the respondent. Hence the order of the Trial Court is perverse and the same is liable to the set aside and accordingly set aside and the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. These Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned orders on applications under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Order 22 Rule 5 CPC and Order 9 Rule 9 CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Application to Implead Subsequent Purchaser
- Revision petitioners challenge the Trial Court's decision to allow the application to implead the subsequent purchaser as a party to the proceeding.
- Petitioners argue that the suit filed by the deceased plaintiff for permanent injunction against her brother renders the cause of action non-existent upon her death.
- The respondent, sister of the deceased plaintiff, purchased only the 1st item of the property after the suit was filed, thus lacking a cause of action.
- Petitioners rely on legal precedents to support their argument that the respondent has no standing to be impleaded in a suit for bare injunction.

Issue 2: Restoration of Suit
- Petitioners contest the restoration of the suit, which was dismissed for default, in respect of all 4 items of the property.
- They argue that since the respondent only purchased the 1st item of the property, seeking restoration for all items is legally improper.

Issue 3: Legal Standing of the Respondent
- The respondent justifies her application to restore the suit and be impleaded, claiming interest in the property as the deceased plaintiff's sister.
- She contends that as per Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC, she has the right to be a party to the proceeding.
- The respondent emphasizes that her claim is limited to the 1st item of the property and that her applications were timely filed after the plaintiff's death and suit dismissal.

Judgment:
- The High Court notes that the respondent's purchase of the property post-suit filing eliminates her cause of action and standing to be impleaded.
- The Court finds merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding the lack of cause of action for the respondent in a suit for bare injunction.
- Legal precedents cited by the petitioners are distinguished from the present case, emphasizing the nature of the suit and the subsequent purchaser's rights.
- Ultimately, the High Court sets aside the Trial Court's order, dismissing the applications for restoration and impleadment, while suggesting the respondent pursue a separate suit if necessary.