Civil Revision No. 6977 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6977 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.2.2009 Tejpal Singh ..... Petitioner vs Ram Kishan Sharma and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Balwinder Singh Sudan,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 11.9.2008 passed by the learned court below whereby in an application under Order I Rule10 CPC filed by respondent no. 1-Ram Kishan Sharma for being impleading as party in the suit, was allowed. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction which was later on converted into a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.7.1999 executed by Pardeep Kumar in favour of the petitioner. It is during the pendency of this suit that the present application was filed by respondent no. 1 for impleading as one of the defendants on the basis of the fact that the property in dispute was allotted to his father by the Tehsildar (Sales), Karnal, on 5.5.1999 along with other land and after the death of his father on 12.10.1999, the same has been inherited by respondent no. 1 and since then he is in possession of the property as owner thereof. As the interest of respondent no. 1. will be adversely affected, he being in actual physical possession of the land allotted to his father by the Tehsildar, in the pending litigation and he being a necessary party, the learned court below finding merit in the application made by him, ordered impleadment of respondent no. 1 as defendant in the suit. Civil Revision No. 6977 of 2008 (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that respondent no. 1 is not necessary party in the pending litigation between the petitioner and defendants no. 1 to 3. It is for the reason that he is not claiming any relief against him. He further submitted that respondent no. 1 is not at all concerned with the agreement to sell. Otherwise the petitioner is not claiming any relief with regard to the property which has been allotted to respondent no.1 by the Tehsildar (Sales), vide letter dated 5.5.1999 and is presently in possession of respondent no. 1. His claim is only against respondents no. 2 to 6 with regard to the property owned and possessed by them. In view of this stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.1 has no interest left in the suit filed by the petitioner, as his right is not going to be adversely affected. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned court is set aside. The petition is disposed of in terms of the stand of the petitioner/plaintiff as recorded above. 11.2.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge