IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5617 of 2010 Date of Decision : 29.9.2010 Shyam Lal Sharma ....Petitioner Versus Sunil Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.K.Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner alleges that there is an agreement to sell in his favour. There is also another agreement in favour of respondent No.1 who has filed a separate suit for specific performance. The property in the meantime has been sold to respondents No.5 to 8. The petitioner moved an application in the suit filed by respondent No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead himself as a party on the strength of the agreement to sell which is in his favour and to contend that there is an enforceable right in his favour as the property involved in the suit is same which is agreed to be sold in his favour and it would be just and proper if he is impleaded as a party. His prayer has been declined by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said order the instant revision petition in which learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he being a necessary party has a right to participate in the proceedings. C.R.No.5617 of 2010 -2- After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. The petitioner, who alleges an agreement to sell in his favour, has an independent right to seek enforcement of such agreement to sell in his favour by way of filing a suit for specific performance but in the suit in which respondent No.1 alleges an agreement to sell in his favour he cannot be considered to be a necessary party merely because the subject-matter of the property is the same. In this eventuality, I do not find any error of jurisdiction having been committed by the trial court. Consequently, the revision petition being misconceived is dismissed. 29.9.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss