Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1504 - HC - Indian LawsImpleadment 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.
|