Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.@mdashA suit for possession by way of ejectment of the defendants from the demised premises and for recovery
of arrears of rent with effect from June 2007 to September 2007 and for damages as well as mesne profits w.e.f. 1.10.2007 with interest thereon
@ 9% etc. is pending adjudication before the Civil Court at Panchkula since 2007. The written statement was preferred by the defendant on
21.12.2007. Replication was filed on 24.3.2008. During the pendency of the suit, premises in dispute were sold by the plaintiff to M/s. 21st
Century Steel Structure Private Ltd., Panchkula. It was vide sale deed (Annexure-P5) of 2.6.2009. Vide an application moved under Order I Rule
10 and Order XXII Rule 10 Rule read with Section 151 CPC for impleadment of subsequent purchaser i.e. M/s. 21st Century Steel Structure
Private Ltd. that vendee was transposed as plaintiff No. 2.
2. When the vendee was transposed as plaintiff No. 2, it preferred not to file any independent pleadings and rather stepping into the shoes of its
vendor i.e. plaintiff No. 1, filed only amended title. After purchase of the property by plaintiff No. 2 (now respondent No. 2) the tenants (now
petitioners), started paying rent to it and continued paying the same since June, 2009 to August 2010. Thereafter, the rent had been paid in the
Court in terms of provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. Taking transposition of the subsequent vendee as plaintiff No. 2 as a new development during proceeding of the suit, the defendants made an
application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of their written statement raising objection to locus standi of the newly transposed
plaintiff No. 2 to maintain the suit. Other incidental and ancillary matters had also been sought to be introduced by way of amendment in the written
statement.
4. Vide impugned order dated 19.5.2014, this request of the petitioners/defendants for amendment of their written statement was declined.
5. By way of this revision petition, the petitioners seek to set aside the impugned order claiming that filing of amended written statement so as to
incorporate the details of the events, which resulted in transposition of the vendee as plaintiff No. 2, is necessary.
6. The lower Court did not approve of this venture of the petitioner-defendants and rejected the said request denouncing such move of the
petitioner-defendants as the one meant for delaying and dilating the proceedings.
7. Even in the present petition, it is claimed that since transposition of the subsequent vendee in the plaint as plaintiff No. 2 had taken place during
pendency of the suit, a right to furnish fresh written statement has accrued to the petitioners-defendants and that they should not be denied an
opportunity to set up their case against the newly added plaintiff No. 2.
8. Hearing has been provided.
9. No doubt transposition of a subsequent vendee as plaintiff No. 2 in the array of plaintiffs is an event which took place during pendency of the
suit, but since no new pleadings were furnished by plaintiff No. 2 and the pleadings preferred by the earlier plaintiff (predecessor-in-interest of the
plaintiff No. 2) were adopted as such without any change of stand, no right to file a subsequent written statement had arisen. No wonder after
transposition of plaintiff No. 2 in the array of plaintiffs, only amended memo of the parties was furnished by them clearly depicting that there was no
change in the stand of the subsequent vendee.
10. Even otherwise, plaintiff No. 2 could not have taken up any new stand because on purchase of the suit property from plaintiff No. 1, plaintiff
No. 2 had merely become a successor-in-interest while stepping into the shoes of plaintiff No. 1. Even the cause of action which arose in favour of
plaintiff No. 1 continues to form genesis of this litigation, in law is enduring as such for plaintiff No. 2 as well.
11. Plea of the petitioners-defendants that provisions of the Act have also become applicable is not a ground worthy of consideration. The suit was
filed by the plaintiff for possession of the premises and that too much earlier to completion of 10 years from the date of completion of construction.
Subsequent sale of the suit property would not result into a fresh litigation particularly when the plaintiff who had filed a suit for possession
continues to be a party to this litigation and the litigation continues as such under his aegis. In short, cause of action which had arisen in favour of
plaintiff No. 1 enures even for plaintiff No. 2 as it has only stepped into the shoes of plaintiff No. 1 i.e. the original owner and cannot be denied the
right to continue with the same litigation.
12. The lower Court had also noticed conduct of the petitioners-defendants with focussed attention. It would not be out of place to mention that
the petitioners-defendants had been filing one application after the other. Even application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC had been filed after sale
of the property from plaintiff No. 1 to plaintiff No. 2. It was contested by the plaintiffs tooth and nail. This was rejected by the lower Court. Even
revision preferred by the petitioners-defendants in this Court against the order of dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC had met
with the same result. The following observations made by the lower Court in impugned order are reflective of the conduct of the petitions. These
are as follows:-
This Court does not find favour with the submissions of the applicant at the stage when the issues in the present case have been framed and case is
already fixed for evidence of the defendant. The present application has been moved with the ulterior motive of delaying the proceedings in the
present case. Also the perusal of the case file reveals that the applicant had also filed successive application in order to delay the matter. Looking
at the conduct of the applicant and the fact that present application is devoid of merits, the present application is dismissed and accordingly
disposed of.
13. The impugned order discusses all the aspects of the case meticulously and the same is very well written. Lacking any factual or legal infirmity,
the revision petition is dismissed.