In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4067 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.7. 2009 Baljit Kaur ......petitioner Versus Garib Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.HPS Ghuman, Advocate. for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Vide this revision petition, petitioner-Baljit Kaur has challenged the order dated 2.4.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Nabha, whereby, application filed by her for impleading her as a party in the suit filed by Garib Singh-respondent No.1 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 2.6.1999 was dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this revision petition is devoid of any merit. Garib Singh-respondent No.1 has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 2.6.1999 executed by defendant Labh Singh. The petitioner, daughter of defendant Labh Civil Revision No. 4067 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Singh, moved an application that she be impleaded as a party to that suit to take effective defence. Since the suit has been filed by Garib Singh against Labh Singh for specific performance, the petitioner cannot be said to be a necessary party as she was not a party to the agreement to sell in question. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner (Annexure P-7) passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.117 of 2001 fails to advance the case of the petitioner as it is based on different facts. In the said case, it was held that the legal representatives could file additional written statement if they were co-owners of the suit property. However, in the present case, defendant Labh Singh, who had executed the agreement to sell in question, is pursuing the case and hence, his daughter, who was not a party to the agreement to sell, at this stage, cannot be allowed to be impleaded as a party. Hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 30, 2009 anita