Civil Revision No. 7544 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7544 of 2009 (O&M) Harnek Singh ....Petitioner Versus Amarjit Kaur and another ...Respondents Civil Revision No. 7545 of 2009 (O&M) Harnek Singh ....Petitioner Versus Satnam Singh and another ...Respondents Date of Decision: 1.12.2010. CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover Present:- Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate for respondent No. 2. MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral) This order will dispose of abovesaid two Civil Revisions bearing Nos. 7544 of 2009 and 7545 of 2009. The above said revision petitions are directed against the orders dated 28.8.2009 and 25.8.2009 by which the prayer of the petitioner to get himself impleaded as party has been declined. The petitioner entered into an agreement of purchase of property with respondent No. 2 which agreement was not honoured by the said respondent No. 2 leading to the filing of a suit for specific performance which has been decreed in favour of the petitioner. In the meantime, it transpired that respondent No.2 has executed several pronotes in favour of different persons some of whom are his relatives. The holders of the pronotes have thus filed suits for recovery against the said respondent No.2 in which he was proceeded against ex-parte. The Court in order to safeguard the interest of plaintiffs in such suits where recovery is sought on the basis of the Civil Revision No. 7544 of 2009 (O&M) 2 pronotes has attached the property of the petitioner which was subject matter of the agreement to sell. The petitioner thus moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to get himself impleaded as a party in the suits filed by respondent No. 1 which prayer was declined by the learned trial Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that the property regarding which the decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner has been attached thereby prejudicing his rights and in this suit the respondent No.2 has been proceeded against ex-parte which indicates the collusive nature of the suit interse between respondents No. 1 and 2 and also between other persons who have pronotes in their favour. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire exercise has been done just to prejudice his rights. The prayer has been opposed by respondent No.1, who states that there is collusion between respondent No.2 and the petitioner and thus the petition deserves to be dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the partes I am of the opinion that the petitioner has a right to be impleaded as party in view of peculiar facts narrated above. The property of the petitioner which was subject matter of agreement to sell and regarding which the decree has also been passed has been attached pursuant to the suits filed by respondent No.1 and other similarly situated persons. Respondent No.2 has not opposed the proceedings and in such an eventuality the possibility of an adverse order being passed against the petitioner cannot be ruled out and further the possibility of more litigation coming into existence also cannot be ruled out. To obviate the chances of multiplicity of litigation and to ensure substantial justice to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant revision petitions deserve to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner is permitted to be impleaded as party to the suits filed by respondents Amarjit Kaur and Satnam Singh. The revision petition stands allowed. (MAHESH GROVER) 1.12.2010 JUDGE Reema