Civil Revision No. 5683 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5683 of 2011 Date of decision. 19.09.2011 Rajinder Bains and others .... Petitioners Versus Sukhbir Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.K.L. Kohli Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.22652-CII of 2011 The application for permission to file typed copies of documents annexed as Annexure P2 and P-3 is sought. The same is granted. Application stands disposed of accordingly. CR No.5683 of 2011 This is a revision petition brought by Rajinder Bains and others under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.05.2011(Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, vide which the application of Sukhbir Singh, respondent no.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed. Civil Revision No. 5683 of 2011 --2-- The suit in which Sukhbir Singh, respondent no.1 made an application under order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been brought by Harjit Singh against Rajinder Bains and others for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 25.03.2007 regarding the property bearing khasra no.2804/653/9 min properly detailed in head note of the plaint. Claiming collusion between the plaintiff and defendants Rajinder Bains and others, Sukhbir Singh has claimed himself to be a necessary party to the suit. He has claimed that the defendants agreed to sell the property in question in his favour on 14.04.2007 for a consideration of Rs.1,25,76,585 out of which a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid in advance. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 16.08.2007. The defendants did not execute the sale deed. He has claimed that the agreement to sell produced in the suit brought by Harjit Singh is false and fabricated and he is not entitled to specific performance of the agreement to sell in respect of the property in question. Therefore, he has prayed for being impleaded as a party to the suit. In reply, it is pleaded that the applicant is a 3rd party and his application is not maintainable as he is not related to the property in dispute. It is further claimed that if he is impleaded as a party to the suit, the scope of the suit would be enlarged. Collusion between the parties has been denied. The plaintiff has also opposed the application claiming that the applicant is not a necessary party. He has denied the defendants to have entered into an agreement to sell in favour of the applicant. He has denied Civil Revision No. 5683 of 2011 --3-- any payment to have been made by the applicant. He has claimed that a false agreement is set up by him to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court observed that genuineness of the agreements would be decided if the applicant is impleaded as a party to the suit. It is held that presence of applicant is necessary in reaching just decision of the case. The application is consequently allowed. Dissatisfied with the impugned order, Rajinder Bains and others have brought this revision petition. I have heard Mr. K.L. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the earlier suit had been filed by the applicant himself. According to him, there is no reason for the applicant to have claimed Harjeet Singh and the defendants to be colluding with each other. He has submitted that the applicant knew about the suit filed by Harjeet Singh from the very beginning and this application is filed in a malafide manner after trial had made enough progress. Admittedly Sukhbir Singh, applicant has also filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of the same land on the basis of agreement to sell dated 14.04.2007. He claims to have paid Rs.25,00,000/- as earnest money. It has to be found out by the court as to which of the agreements; one set by Sukhbir Singh and the other by Harjeet Singh is genuine. Unless the two agreements of sale are before the same Civil Revision No. 5683 of 2011 --4-- court, the court would not be in a position to give finding regarding genuineness of the one or fabrication of the other. The applicant, even if not a necessary party is at least a proper party because in his absence complete justice cannot be done. Therefore, I find no illegality having been committed by the learned trial court in allowing the application of Sukhbir Singh under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision petition is consequently dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.09.2011 dinesh