Civil Revision No. 585 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 585 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.4.2010 Mohinder kaur ...Petitioner Versus Nachhatar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner herein filed a plea under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment, as a party, to a suit which had been filed by respondents-plaintiffs Nachhatar Singh and others against the respondent Beant Singh and Balwinder Singh. The suit filed by Nachhatar Singh was for the possession, by way of specific performance of agreement dated 14.7.2005 vide which the defendants therein had agreed to sell 5/6th share held by them in the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 15//15/2 (6-13), 16/11(8-0), 15//15/1 (1-7) Khata Khatoni No.8/22, 23 total measuring 13 Kanal 6 Marlas situated at villate Khiala Khurad Tehsil Ajnala Distt. Amritsar at a total cost of Rs.14,00,656/-. The learned Trial Court negatived the plea raised by the petitioner by observing that the matter being exclusively between the plaintiffs and defendants therein and it being relatable to an Civil Revision No. 585 of 2010 -2- **** indicated agreement, there was no justification in ordering the impleadment of the petitioner herein as a party, particularly when she was not a party to the impugned agreement. I called upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to indicate his grievance with the finding and also the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court. It is argued that the allowance of the plea would enable the respondent to avoid multiplicity of litigation. I do not find any force in the plea. It has been appropriately noticed by the learned Trial Court that the petitioner herein does not seem to have any relate-ability to the cause which is exclusively between the parties thereto. The controversy between the parties being in the context of a particular agreement, there is no understandable reason why the allowance of the plea for impleadment would avoid multiplicity of litigation. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. April 19, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge