IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1226/2011 Date of decision:22.2.2011. Shaganjeet Kaur .............Petitioner v Amarjeet Kaur and others ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.Rakesh Kaushik,Advocate for Mr.Raghujeet Singh Madan,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J(Oral). Applicant/petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 25.8.2010 (P1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dabwali, whereby his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as defendant in the suit filed by plaintiff/respondent no.1- Amarjeet Kaur has been dismissed. It is apparent from the record that plaintiff Amarjeet Kaur had filed a suit for declaration against her sister- respondent no.2 Surinder Kaur seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 10.2.2006 allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 i.e. respondents 3 and 4 herein-Pargat Singh and Ranjit Singh qua the sale of land falling to her share is null and void being based on impersonation and fraud. It is further apparent that Surinder Kaur was also a co-sharer to the extent of 1/3rd share out of the total share of their late father Mukhtiar Singh, which in compliance of the agreement to sell dated 27.7.2007 has been sold and possession handed over to the applicant vide sale deed dated 10.10.2008. It is further evident that the learned trial court has noticed the fact that in the present suit the petitioner applicant is not a necessary party since the dispute between the two sisters is with regard to the share of the plaintiff Amarjeet Kaur. It has also been shown on record that even the sale deed dated 27.7.2007 executed by Surinder Kaur in favour of petitioner/applicant has been challenged by the plaintiff Amarjeet Kaur by way of filing a separate suit. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the paper book in view of the admitted facts I find that the order dated 25.8.2010 passed by the learned trial Court holding that the applicant is neither a necessary nor proper party for deciding the suit does not warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227. Dismissed. 22.2.2011. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge