IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5530 of 2009. Date of Decision : 4.5.2010. Harbans Singh ......Petitioner Versus Badan Singh & another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Rattan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated May 14th, 2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhuri, whereby, application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as party in the suit, was dismissed. 2. Badan Singh-respondent No.1 filed suit against Ajmer Singh-respondent No.2 for specific performance of a contract for sale of land measuring 2 bighas 3 biswas comprised in khasra No.2031 situated in village Dhuri. The petitioner who is brother of Ajmer Singh is also co-sharer in the suit land as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04 (Annexure P-2). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the petitioner was a co-sharer in the suit land so, he had some semblance of title in the property and as such, he was necessary party to be impleaded in the suit. In support of the contention, he relied upon Sumtibai & others vs. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar 2007(4) CCC 593 (SC). 4. Against this, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has supported the impugned order and has urged that petitioner had no interest in the suit property and as such, his application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rightly dismissed. He has also relied Civil Revision No.5530 of 2009. (2) upon Kasturi vs.Iyyamperumal & others RCR (Civil 691 SC and Bharat Karondas Thakkar vs. M/s. Kiran Construction Co. others 2008(2) CCC 561 SC. 5. In Sumtibai's case (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court after commenting upon Kasturi's case (supra) held as under:- In view of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that Kasturi's case (supra) is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party can never be impleaded in that suit. In our opinion, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no titled in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced. 6. In Bharat Karsondas Thakkar's case (supra) it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a suit for specific performance, a stranger to an agreement of sale cannot be impleaded as party to the suit in view of Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act. Indeed, the petitioner has been able to show semblance of title in the property in dispute and as such, Sumtibai's case (supra) is applicable to the facts of the case on all fours. 7. Above being the legal and factual position, the revision petition is accepted. Order under challenge is set-aside. The petitioner is allowed to be impleaded as party to the suit. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 4.5.2010. SN