IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 165 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.1.2010 Inder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Puran Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. P.S.Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.533-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 165 of 2010 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.9.2009. It is to be noticed that plaintiff Waryam Chand and defendant Puran Singh in the suit had executed an exchange deed which was acted upon. The petitioner is the proposed vendee under Puran Singh who had executed an agreement to sell in his favour. Waryam Singh thereafter filed a suit against Puran Singh challenging the exchange deed which had been executed earlier inter se between the parties. In the suit the petitioner made an application under order 1 C.R. No. 165 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Rule 10 CPC to get himself impleaded as a party on the ground that any determination qua the exchange deed would adversely affect his rights. The said application was declined by the trial court vide the impugned order dated 29.9.2009. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that denial of the trial court to implead him as a party in the suit is likely to prejudice his case in the eventuality of his filing a suit seeking enforcement of the agreement to sell. He further contended that the suit is collusive in order to defeat his rights. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order. It is settled principle of law that the plaintiff in a suit is an architect of his own proceedings and it is open to him to implead or delete any person in the memorandum of parties and the petitioner has no inherent right to get himself impleaded in the proceedings. The prayer of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party was thus rightly declined. In any eventuality if the petitioner chooses to file a suit for enforcement of the agreement to sell in his favour through a court of law, it would be open to him to move an appropriate application before the court of competent jurisdiction so as to get both the suits tried together. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 13.1.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss