Civil Revision No.4617 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4617 of 2011 Date of Decision:-.2.8.2011 Sukhwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Hans Raj and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Concisely, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Hans Raj son of Kashmir Chand respondent No.1-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”), filed the suit (Annexure P1) against Pritpal Singh son of Gurdit Singh respondent No.2-defendant (for short “the defendant”), father of the petitioner, seeking a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 4.7.2005, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the land in dispute. 2. The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement (Annexure P2) and prayed for its dismissal. 3. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner Sukhwinder Singh, son of the defendant, filed an application (Annexure P4) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, for impleading him as a party to the suit, on the ground that the property in dispute has already been transferred in his name and in the name of his brother, by virtue of transfer deed dated 10.10.2005 (Annexure P3). 4. The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, by means of impugned order dated 13.6.2011 (Annexure P6). Civil Revision No.4617 of 2011 -2- 5. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and preferred the instant revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition in this context. 7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the land in dispute has subsequently been transferred in the name of the petitioner and his brother, so, he is a necessary party in the suit, sans merit. 8. As is evident from the record that plaintiff filed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 4.7.2005, executed by the defendant in his favour. The petitioner claimed that the suit land was subsequently transferred to them, vide transfer deed (Annexure P3) much after the agreement to sell. 9. As to whether the indicated agreement to sell, is a valid document or otherwise, would be the moot point to be decided by the trial Court, during the course of trial. If the plaintiff would be able to prove by cogent evidence that the agreement to sell is genuine and has been duly executed by the defendant, only then, his suit for specific performance would be decreed and not otherwise. In this manner, to me, the petitioner, who is none else, but son of the defendant, is not at all necessary party to decide the real controversy in lis. He has filed the application (Annexure P4) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC only in order to help his father and is an unsuccessful attempt to avoid the agreement and to delay the disposal of the case. To my mind, the trial Court has rightly negatived his claim, by way of impugned order, which, in substance, is as under:- “I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and have perused the case file carefully. Before proceeding to discuss further to adjudicate upon the fate of the application under consideration, it is considered necessary to take note of the fact that as is apparent from the Civil Revision No.4617 of 2011 -3- application itself, the applicant Sukhvinder Singh is none else but the real son of the defendant Pritpal Singh. The instant suit is the one seeking possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 4.7.2005 in respect of the land as detailed in the head note of the plaint. The said agreement relied upon by the plaintiff and forming the very basis of plaintiff's claim, when perused, is shown to have been arrived at only between the plaintiff and the defendant and the present applicant is not a party to such contract. The transfer deed in favour of the applicant as put forth by him in his application is claimed to be dated 10.10.2005 i.e. after the date of the agreement to sell but quite surprisingly no copy of any such transfer deed has been placed on record by the applicant. The contention of the applicant that the plaintiff and the defendant have hatched a deep rooted conspiracy and the suit has been filed against defendant under such conspiracy, is ill-founded on the face of it as a perusal of the Written Statement of the defendant shows that the defendant is contesting the suit of the plaintiff with all of the vigour and vitality at his command. On the other hand, it appears that the instant application is the result of connivance and collusion between the applicant and defendant who is admittedly is real father whose sole aim is to thwart the claim of the plaintiff by setting up a transfer deed claimed to have been executed by defendant in favour of the applicant on 10.10.2005 although the agreement to sell in this case is dated 4.7.2005. In a suit aimed at enforcing a contract, only the contracting parties can be said to be necessary and proper party and a stranger to the contract, if pleading any right in the subject matter of agreement, has a right to avail of his remedy independently and in this view of the matter also, the applicant cannot be said to be a necessary or proper party to the suit when particularly even no copy of the alleged transfer deed has seen the light of the day though the application is pending for consideration for the last more than a year.” 10. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the valid reasons in dismissing the application (Annexure P4) filed by the petitioner by passing the impugned order (Annexure P6). Such impugned order cannot possibly be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order has Civil Revision No.4617 of 2011 -4- been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so as to take a contrary view by this Court, than that of the well reasoned decision already arrived at by the trial Court. 11. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest, it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. However, it is made clear that nothing observed here-in- above would, in any manner, reflect on the merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding this revision petition. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 2.8.2011 Judge AS