Civil Revision No.5162 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5162 of 2011 Date of Decision:12.09.2011 Harjinder Singh Danoha ......Petitioner Versus Jagan Nath and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.R.K.Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Concisely, the relevant facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present revision petition and emanating from the record are that, Jagan Nath son of Mata Bakash-respondent No.1-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against Jagdeep Singh son of Jarnail Singh-respondent No.2-defendant(for short “the defendant”) for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.11.2005 in respect to the land in dispute. 2. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner-Harjinder Singh Danoha son of Gurcharan Singh, moved an application for impleading him as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, inter alia, pleading that defendant-Jagdeep Singh has executed another agreement to sell in his(petitioner) favour and agreed to sell his land measuring 20 Biswas vide agreement dated 06.07.2005. Hence, he is a necessary party in the suit. The plaintiff contested the claim of the petitioner, filed the reply, inter alia, terming the agreement of the petitioner dated 06.07.2005, as without consideration & ante-dated and created to defraud him(plaintiff). Civil Revision No.5162 of 2011 2 3. The trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner, by means of impugned order dated 05.05.2011(Annexure P-5), the operative part of which is as under:- “I have considered the rival submission and is of the opinion that applicant cannot be impleaded as party in the instant case. Plaintiff is totally stranger to the suit and suit can be decided effectively even in his absence. In this regard, I am supported by Kasturi Lal V/s Iyyaperumal 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 640 Supreme Court. Further applicant has not filed the suit for specific performance till date which creates doubt as to his claim. Surprisingly defendant against whom allegations has been made had not even replied to the application. Still further, timing of application is also questionable as after about 7/8 opportunities of evidence of the defendant, application was moved by applicant. Applicant had failed to explain why three years time was kept at the time of execution of alleged agreement to sell which was again allegedly extended for other two years without any reason. No ground to implead applicant as party in this suit is made out. Hence application u/o 1 rule 10 CPC is dismissed. Now to come up on 21.05.2011 for evidence of defendant.” 4. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, petitioner-Harjinder Singh Danoha preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this regard. 6. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.11.2005. Petitioner-Harjinder Singh Danoha is totally a stranger to the suit and has set-up another agreement dated 06.07.2005, which was claimed by the plaintiff, to be without consideration, forged, fabricated and ante- dated document. The petitioner appears to have moved the application with collusion of the defendant and the trial Court has rightly dismissed his application Civil Revision No.5162 of 2011 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith that the petitioner is a necessary party, to be impleaded in the suit. The plaintiff is the Dominus litus of his case and he cannot possibly be forced to implead, or to prosecute a person against whom, he is not aggrieved, in any manner. 7. Learned counsel did not point out, any material, much less cogent, how and in what manner, any interference is warranted, or manifest injustice has occasioned to the petitioner in this context. Therefore, to me, the trial Court has rightly dismissed his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, for impleading him as a party. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. September 12, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE