Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) Challenge in the present petition has been laid to order dated 14.9.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga whereby application (Annexure P-3) filed by respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC ") has been allowed.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner (defendant no. 4) has submitted that Gurdev Singh and others respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants Joginder Singh and others including the petitioner from alienating land measuring 16 kanals 2 marlas, detailed in head note of the plaint as per jamabandi for the year 2002-03 situated in the area of village Dharamkot Janubi District Moga. After about two years of institution of the suit, the instant application was filed for impleading Sunil Sachar and Lakhwinder Singh respondents No. 7 and 8 as defendants No. 5 and 6 on the plea that after an order of status quo regarding alienation has been passed, defendant No. 5 Sunil Sachar executed sale deeds bearing vasika Nos. 2000 and 2001 dated 19.12.2014 in favour of proposed defendant No. 6 namely Lakhwinder Singh and both the sale deeds are hit by doctrine of lis pendence and are executed after passing of status quo order dated 13.9.2013. It is argued that the sale deeds dated 19.12.2014 have not been executed by any of the defendants arrayed as such in the original suit, therefore, there was no question of the sale deeds being hit by principle of lis pendence. In addition, it is argued that cause of action to seek injunction against defendants No. 5 and 6 if any, arose after 19.12.2014, therefore, the learned trial Court has committed a serious error rather illegality in allowing application of the plaintiffs for impleading Sunil Schar and Lakhwinder Singh as additional defendants.
(3.) Counsel for the contesting respondents/plaintiffs, on the contrary, has supported the impugned order with the submissions that in case the respondents are not permitted to implead defendants No. 5 and 6 as a party in the present suit, they may be constrained to file another suit against them which would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Another submission made by counsel is that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case defendants No. 5 and 6 are joined as a party in the present suit.;