C.R.No.6028 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6028 of 2009. Decided on: October 21, 2009. Gurnam Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS Bahadur Singh and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.R.K.Handa, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The applicant-petitioner Gurnam Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing his application ounder Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, praying for permission to become a party in a suit which stands decreed against his father Jhujhar Singh. Heard. From the record, it is apparent that suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff-respondent Nos.2 & 3, has been decreed in their favour against Jhujhar Singh father of the applicant. . . . 1 C.R.No.6028 of 2009 During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner being son of Jhujhar Singh wants to be impleaded as a party claiming that the property in dispute is a coparcenary property and that adjudication of the suit for specific performance has prejudiced his rights as such, he is a necessary and proper party. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed the application, inter alia, on the ground that Jhujhar Singh father of the applicant had not raised any plea in his written statement that suit property is joint Hindu family coparcenary and ancestral property and that the application for amendment of the written statement to incorporate the said plea stands already declined by the said Court, as such, the applicant who might have an independent right in the property in dispute cannot be allowed to agitate his claim in the appeal proceedings pending before the Court. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application. He placed reliance on Gordhan Vs.Pawan and others, 2006(1), PLR, Page-335, in which case in a suit for specific performance an application had been filed by the minor children of the defendant. Said application was allowed by the trial Court in peculiar circumstances of said case as revision petition filed against the said order was dismissed by High Court in Gordhan's case (supra). The facts and circumstances of the said case are distinguishable from the facts in the present case. . . . 2 C.R.No.6028 of 2009 It was never laid down in the said judgment as a principle of law that in all cases of specific performance any person claiming right, title and interest, at any stage, can be permitted to be impleaded as a party. Counsel for the petitioner has also made a reference to Inder Vikram Singh Vs. Dr.Harinder Pal Singh, 2008 (1) PLR, Page 267, in which case, it was observed that a plaintiff cannot resist the impleadment of the defendant whose interests are likely to be effected in any manner. In the said case in a suit for possession on the basis of title, where question of ownership was required to be examined and a third party sought the ownership in a part of the property, as such, the said party was permitted to be impleaded as a party. The ratio of said judgment does not appear to be relevant in the present case, especially when the main defendant i.e., father of the petitioner, namely Jhujhar Singh, who had allegedly entered into an agreement of sale with plaintiff-respondent Nos.2 & 3, had not taken up the plea regarding the nature of the property to be joint Hindu family and coparcenary property. The applicant- petitioner has also not been able, at this stage, to satisfy the Court regarding the nature of the property as Joint Hindu family coparcenary property from any document and where the case has already been decided and is at appellate stage, it will not be proper, in the interest of justice, to permit the petitioner to become a party and change the nature of the suit. No ground for interference is made out. . . . 3 C.R.No.6028 of 2009 The revision petition is dismissed. It is made clear that dismissal of this revision petition or the application of the plaintiff-respondent will not be deemed to affect civil right of the petitioner. It will always be open to him to establish and claim the property to be Joint Hindu family coparcenary property, in accordance with law, if permissible. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE October 21, 2009. rka . . . 4