http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DHANNA SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BALJINDER KAUR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Single  Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made on May 22, 1996 in C.R. No.4333/1995.      The undisputed  facts are  that the respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction with the  following prayer:      "It is,  therefore, prayed  that  a      decree  for   permanent  injunction      restraining  the   defendants  from      raising any  construction over  any      specific portion  of  the  property      detailed  in  the  heading  of  the      plaint, and  also  restraining  the      defendants from filling any part of      the  property   by  sand  and  also      retraining  the   defendants   from      alienating any  specific portion of      the property  and also  restraining      the  defendants  from  transferring      the  possession   of  the  property      without the  same being partitioned      between the parties to the suit may      kindly be  passed in  favour of the      plaintiffs against  the  defendants      with costs  and  any  other  relief      which the  Hon’ble Court  may  deem      fit be also granted."      Pending the  suit, though  several  opportunities  were given, no  evidence was  adduced by the defendant. The court passed an  order  on  September  22,  1995  foreclosing  the evidence of  the defendant  on the  statement of the counsel that the  first  defendant  was  not  willing  to  lead  any evidence. An  application for  impleadment was filed earlier by the  appellant who  is a  subsequent purchaser  from  the first defendant. After impleadment, he filed application for adduction of evidence which was rejected. Thus this appeal.      The  undisputed   fact  is   that  in  the  plaint  the plaintiff-respondent had  already sought  for  a  relief  of injunction of  alienation, yet  the alienation  came  to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

made.  Apart from the doctrine of lis Pendense under section 52 of  the T.P.  Act, the  subsequent purchaser does not get any right  to lead  to any  evidence, as he stepped into the shoes of  the first defendant, who had given up the right to lead evidence.  In view  of these circumstances, he does not get any right to lead any evidence.      The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.