C. R. No. 2209 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2209 of 2009 Date of Decision : April 23, 2009 Sanjay and others .... Petitioners Vs. Jasbir Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition assailing order dated 21.03.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, whereby application moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – the CPC), for becoming party to the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent no.1 against defendant-respondents no.2 and 3, has been dismissed. Petitioners no.1 and 2 are sons of defendant no.1 (respondent no.2 herein), whereas petitioner no.3 is son of defendant no.2 (respondent no.3 herein). Plaintiff- respondent no.1 has filed suit against respondents no.2 and 3 for possession of the suit land by specific performance of agreement to sell. The claim of the petitioners is that they are coparceners in the suit land with the defendants and therefore, have share therein by birth, and therefore, they are necessary party to the suit. C. R. No. 2209 of 2009 2 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. By now, it is well settled law that coparceners cannot challenge the proposed sale of coparcenary property by karta before completion of sale, but can challenge the same after the sale is effected or completed. In view thereof, the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even a stranger can be impleaded as party to the suit for specific performance. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumtibai and others vs. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) and others reported as 2007 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 524. However, in that case, the applicant seeking to be impleaded as party had semblance of title in the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed. The said case did not relate to impleadment of a person as party on the ground of being coparcener as is the position in the instant case. The judgment is completely distinguishable on facts. On the other hand, this judgment by a Bench of two Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court distinguished a judgment of three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and others reported as (2005) 6 S.C.C. 733. In the instant case, the petitioners cannot be ordered to be impleaded as party to the suit on the ground of the petitioners being coparceners and having interest in the suit property. They may have a right to challenge the same after the sale is completed, but they have no right to be impleaded as party to the suit. In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. April 23, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE C. R. No. 2209 of 2009 3