Sister who bought property after injunction suit filed cannot join case or restore dismissed suit

The HC set aside the Trial Court's order allowing impleadment of a subsequent purchaser as party to a suit for permanent injunction. The original plaintiff died after filing suit against three defendants regarding four property items, and the suit was dismissed for default. The deceased plaintiff's sister, who purchased one property item after the suit was filed, sought to restore the dismissed suit and implead herself as party. The HC held that since the suit was for bare injunction and the proposed party purchased the property only after suit filing, no cause of action existed against her and she lacked locus standi to restore the suit. The Civil Revision Petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging impugned orders on applications under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Order 22 Rule 5 CPC and Order 9 Rule 9 CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Application to Implead Subsequent Purchaser
- Revision petitioners challenge the Trial Court's decision to allow the application to implead the subsequent purchaser as a party to the proceeding.
- Petitioners argue that the suit filed by the deceased plaintiff for permanent injunction against her brother renders the cause of action non-existent upon her death.
- The respondent, sister of the deceased plaintiff, purchased only the 1st item of the property after the suit was filed, thus lacking a cause of action.
- Petitioners rely on legal precedents to support their argument that the respondent has no standing to be impleaded in a suit for bare injunction.

Issue 2: Restoration of Suit
- Petitioners contest the restoration of the suit, which was dismissed for default, in respect of all 4 items of the property.
- They argue that since the respondent only purchased the 1st item of the property, seeking restoration for all items is legally improper.

Issue 3: Legal Standing of the Respondent
- The respondent justifies her application to restore the suit and be impleaded, claiming interest in the property as the deceased plaintiff's sister.
- She contends that as per Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC, she has the right to be a party to the proceeding.
- The respondent emphasizes that her claim is limited to the 1st item of the property and that her applications were timely filed after the plaintiff's death and suit dismissal.

Judgment:
- The High Court notes that the respondent's purchase of the property post-suit filing eliminates her cause of action and standing to be impleaded.
- The Court finds merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding the lack of cause of action for the respondent in a suit for bare injunction.
- Legal precedents cited by the petitioners are distinguished from the present case, emphasizing the nature of the suit and the subsequent purchaser's rights.
- Ultimately, the High Court sets aside the Trial Court's order, dismissing the applications for restoration and impleadment, while suggesting the respondent pursue a separate suit if necessary.

---