C.R.No.162 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.162 of 2009. Decided on August 07, 2009. Gurdarshan Sethi and another .. Petitioners VERSUS Gurdial Singh and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Sandeep Khungar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.K.R.Dhawa, Advocate, for respondent No.1. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioners-plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2008, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Zira, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10, read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for adding Sahib Singh as a defendant and for amendment of the plaint to this effect. The petitioners have filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 16.02.1999, directing . . . 1 C.R.No.162 of 2009 respondent No.1, Gurdial Singh, to execute a registered sale deed. The petitioners claim that Gurdial Singh, respondent No.1 and his brother Sahib Singh, were owners of two shops. One shop was sole by Gurdial Singh, to respondent Nos.2 to 4. The petitioners were ready and willing for getting the execution of the sale deed in their favour but defendant-respondent No.1, Gurdial Singh, did not come forward to execute the sale deed compelling the petitioners-plaintiffs to file a suit for specific performance. The sole ground on the basis of which Sahib Singh is sought to be added as a defendant is that he was also a co-sharer to the extent of half share regarding the shops in dispute. Defendant-respondent No.1, had intentionally not disclosed this fact. The trial Court has dismissed the application for impleadment of Sahib Singh, as additional defendant on the ground that the application has been filed at a belated stage as the relief qua Sahib Singh, if any, has become time barred and that he has a stranger to the agreement of sale. Counsel for the petitioners submit that it has come on record during the trial in the shape of pleadings as well as in the shape of statements of the witnesses that Sahib Singh has got a share in the property in dispute. He has placed reliance on Sumtibai & Others Vs. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar, 2007(4) RCR(Civil), page-524, wherein it was observed that if a person has got semblance to the title to the property in dispute, despite the fact that he is a third party, he can be made a party in a case of specific performance. It is argued that since Sahib Singh has got some . . . 2 C.R.No.162 of 2009 semblance of title and interest in the property in dispute, he is a proper and necessary party. I have considered the ratio of ruling cited by counsel for the petitioners. The judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumtibai's case (supra), arose from a dispute where the defendant in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale had died and his wife and sons applied to be brought on record as the legal representatives, they were permitted to be impleaded as parties under Order 22 Rule 4 (2) CPC, read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and were also permitted to file additional written statement. The trial Court had rejected their application. The order of rejection of said application for impleadment was challenged in the High Court by a revision petition which was also dismissed by the High Court. The above said observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowing the SLP, permitting legal representatives of the defendant to be impleaded as a party and to file additional written statement. The facts and circumstances of the present case are absolutely different from the above said case of Sumtibai. Sahib Singh is neither a signatory to the agreement of sale nor any relief has been claimed against him. From the various documents referred to by counsel for the parties, it appears that it was known to both the parties that Sahib Singh has got a share in the property (shops) in dispute, which will a moot point during trial, whereas the suit for specific performance qua Gurdial Singh to the extent of his share can be decreed as per the provisions of law. . . . 3 C.R.No.162 of 2009 Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on Puran Ram Vs.Bhaguram & anr., 2008(2) RCR (Civil), Page 499, to contend that an amendment of pleadings cannot be rejected on the ground that relief sought for had become barred by limitation. There is no dispute regarding the said proposition. Certainly the question of limitation does not arise at the time of seeking amendment but has to be determined at the time of final adjudication but since the suit in the present case has been filed in the year 2002 and the amendment has been sought six years after the filing of the suit when the case is almost ripen for adjudication, the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of amended CPC, are applicable. The trial Court seems to have rightly rejected the application for impleadment/ amendment taking into consideration the penultimate stage of the litigation. No ground is made out for interference in the impugned order dated 02.12.2008, as such, the present revision petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the rights of the petitioners, if any, against Sahib Singh, who has not been impleaded a party in this case. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 07, 2009. rka . . . 4