Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THE order impugned in this case is Annexure P -3 dated 20.7.2007. On 22.1.2007, Shinder Pal Kaur wife of Ujagar Singh, Vinod Ram son of Shri Ram and Darshan Kumar son of Rangi Ram moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, averring that during the period between dismissal of a suit in default on 7.8.2002 and restoration thereof on 14.8.2006, defendant Sukhdev Singh had expired on 26.9.2003. The widow of Sukhdev Singh executed a sale deed dated 13.9.2004 of her 1/4th share of consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/ -in favour of Shinderpal Kaur and share of Gagandeep Kaur and Pardeep Singh daughter and son of Sukhdev Singh, after getting permission from the Court vide order dated 23.9.2005. It is further pleaded that legal representative of Sukhdev Singh have no interest in the suit property and as such, will not pursue it properly and hence, the applicant, being owner in possession would be effected by any decision taken in the suit.
(2.) THE trial Court has allowed the applicant to join these proceedings at the present stage without prejudice to the merits of the case. The prayer of the petitioners is that permitting them to be impleaded as a party without right to contest and to file their written statement would be meaningless. Counsel further contends that party would have a right to file a written statement once it is impleaded. In support of his submission, the counsel has placed reliance on the case of Sumtibai and Ors. v. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar w/o Parasmal Chordia (D) and Ors., 2007 (4) RCR 524. In Para 8 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: Every party in a case has a right to file a written statement. This is in accordance with natural justice. The Civil Procedure Code is really the rules of natural justice which are set out in great and elaborate detail. Its purpose is to enable both parties to get a hearing. The appellants in the present case have already been made parties in the suit, but it would be strange if they are not allowed to take a defence. In our opinion, Order 22 Rule 42(2) CPC cannot be construed in the manner suggested by learned Counsel for the respondent. As noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would sound strange if the person is allowed to be impleaded as a party and not permitted to take up a valid defence that is available to him. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, would attempt to justify the impugned order and submit that the petitioners have been permitted to join the proceedings and no further right can be granted to them as otherwise it will prolong the proceedings and the decision in the civil suit.
(3.) IT is seen that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers. They had purchased this property when the suit for specific performance had been dismissed in default. It was not be restored for over a period of four years. Accordingly, the petitioners have come to acquire valid and vested rights and they are entitled to protect. The petitioners can protect their rights only if they are permitted to take a stand, which is available to them under law. Their prayer is just and reasonable and essential for granting just hearing to them.;