Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kaur & Another vs Rajinder Singh & Others on 22 July, 2008
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Civil Revision No.3858 of 2008 (O&M) :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.3858 of 2008
Date of Decision: July 22, 2008
Surinder Kaur & another
...Petitioners
VERSUS
Rajinder Singh & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.G.S.Sirphikhi, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Prayer of the petitioners for being impleaded as defendants in a suit has been declined. The petitioners have filed an application for being impleaded in a suit for specific performance seeking joint possession as owner on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 10.12.1995. The agreement is pertaining to a property Civil Revision No.3858 of 2008 (O&M) :2: situated in village Bhagat Majra standing in the name of the respondents. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs in connivance with the defendants in the suit have executed an agreement dated 30.3.1999, whereas there was an earlier agreement in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit. dated 10.12.1995. The applicant-petitioners alongwith one Mohinder Singh have filed a suit for possession against the present respondent-defendants and other co-sharers which was dismissed on 18.8.2005. Appeal against the said order is pending before District Judge, Ropar. It is alleged that respondent- defendants in connivance with the plaintiffs have prepared the alleged agreement just to defeat the rights of the applicants and thus they have moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as party in this suit. Their prayer has been declined and so the petitioners have filed this present revision petition.
It is clear that present suit has been filed on the basis of an agreement dated 30.3.1999. The petitioners are not the parties to this agreement. They would accordingly be not necessary or proper parties in this dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants in the said suit. The dispute pertaining to previous agreement dated 10.12.1995 between the applicants and the defendants is already pending before the Court of District Judge, Ropar as noticed. There is nothing made out from the record in support of the contention raised that the subsequent agreement has been executed just to defeat the rights of the petitioners. The trial court has referred to the ratio of law laid down in Saudagar Singh Versus Harnek Singh and others, 1989 Civil Court Cases 447 (P&H) and Singh Ram Singh Civil Revision No.3858 of 2008 (O&M) :3: Versus Gig Raj, 1989 Civil Court cases 599 (P&H), where it is held that a person in whose favour prior agreement has been executed is not a necessary and proper party in a suit filed on any agreement subsequently made. Learned counsel, however, would refer to the case of Rajinder Singh Versus Jaswant Singh and anr. 1987 PLJ 68 to urge that party having bona fide claim regarding property in dispute should be allowed to be impleaded as a party. This was a case where the applicant seeking impleadment was put in possession of the property in part performance of an earlier agreement. In this background, it was observed that he would have interest being in possession of the property and hence was allowed to be impleaded. There is nothing on record in the present case to suggest that the applicants have been put in possession of the suit property. In fact, they have failed in their suit on the basis of an agreement standing in their favour against which they have filed an appeal. It appears that the petitioners are wanting to re-agitate the entire issue about their rights flowing on the basis of an agreement which has been adjudicated by the court and decided against them. Under these circumstance, they cannot be considered to be a necessary or proper party. The prayer of the petitioners for being impleaded as a party, as such, has been rightly declined and would not call for any interference.
Dismissed.
July 22, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH )
ramesh JUDGE
Civil Revision No.3858 of 2008 (O&M) :4: