IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 8086 of 2011 Date of decision: 17th August, 2012 New World Buildcon (P) Ltd. Moth Masjid Marketing, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi ....... Petitioner versus Gurmej Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. L.N.Mittal, J.(Oral) In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, order dated 30.08.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-5) moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'CPC') for impleading the petitioner as party to the suit, is under challenge. Defendants No. 1 to 5 who are parents, brother and nephews of the plaintiff allegedly agreed to sell the suit land along with other land to defendants No. 6 and 7 vide agreement dated 27.04.2005 and in turn defendants No. 6 and 7 allegedly assigned their rights under the said agreement to the petitioner vide agreement dated 25.05.2006. Accordingly, the petitioner sought to be impleaded as party to the suit. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide order Annexure P-1 which is under challenge in this Civil Revision No. 8086 of 2011 -2- revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of assignment of rights by defendants No. 6 and 7 to the petitioner, the petitioner is necessary and proper party to the suit. The contention cannot be accepted. On the basis of the alleged assignment of rights by some agreement, the petitioner cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the suit. The application moved by the petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The instant revision petition is meritless and is accordingly, dismissed in limine. [L.N.MITTAL] JUDGE 17th August, 2012 Shivani Kaushik