CR No. 3252 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 3252 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.5.2011. Davinder Singh .......Petitioner Vs. Anil Setia and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration that they were owners/lessees in possession of suit property along with defendant No. 16. Petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 along with order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a defendant. Vide the impugned order dated 22.3.2011, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- “10.Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.- (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, CR No. 3252 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fee mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or court may without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.- Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court, otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if CR No. 3252 of 2011 (O&M) -3- the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant. (5) Subject to the provisions of the [Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), section 22], the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons.” Petitioner had moved an application for being impleaded as a party basing his claim on agreement to sell dated 10.7.2008, executed in his favour by Manish Nagpal. Admittedly, Manish Nagpal had executed the agreement to sell dated 10.7.2008 in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of agreement to sell dated 11.4.2008 executed in his favour by the plaintiffs. Manish Nagpal had still not become the owner of the suit property on the basis of agreement to sell dated 11.4.2008 as no sale deed has been executed in his favour so far, on the basis of the said agreement to sell. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to be a necessary party in the suit filed by the plaintiffs, on the basis of agreement to sell executed in his favour by a person who had yet not become owner of the suit property. In these circumstances, the application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 with Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was liable to be dismissed. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed (SABINA) JUDGE May 17, 2011 Gurpreet