Civil Revision No. 5708 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5708 of 2011 Date of decision. 19.09.2011 Bansi .... Petitioner Versus Devender Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 27.5.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad whereby the application of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party to the suit brought by Devender Singh and others against Smt. Triveni and others has been dismissed. The brief facts necessary for deciding this revision petition, are as under:- Devender Singh, Ashok and Mahesh filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract of sale dated 03.10.2007 against Smt. Triveni and others. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application for being impleaded as a party on the ground that he is a co-sharer to the extent of 1/3rd share and, therefore a necessary party to the suit. Civil Revision No. 5708 of 2011 --2-- In reply to the application, the connection of the petitioner with the suit property has been denied. It is claimed that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the applicant-petitioner. It is also claimed that the petitioner himself admits that the defendants are owners of ½ share in the land. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application vide the impugned order. It has been observed that the applicant is a 3rd party and a stranger to the contract and he is not to be added as a party to the suit. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant Bansi has brought this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Bansi is owner of the agricultural land measuring 16 kanals 2 marlas regarding which he has filed a suit for declaration alongwith consequential relief of permanent injunction. He has drawn my attention to the copy of the plaint of that suit brought against Babu Ram etc. He has submitted that if the suit brought by Devender Singh and others for specific performance of contract of sale dated 3.10.2007 is decreed, the petitioner would be the most affected person. According to him as his rights are involved in the suit land, he is a necessary party to the suit and he was to be impleaded as a party to the suit even against the wishes of the plaintiffs. Civil Revision No. 5708 of 2011 --3-- Banshi had brought his suit against Smt. Triveni and others in which Devender alias Tinku, the plaintiff of the suit for specific performance of contract of sale deed dated 3.10.2007 is also a defendant. If he claims ownership in the suit land to the exclusion of Smt. Triveni, whose agreement of sale is sought to be enforced by Devender Singh and others, the decision in the suit for specific performance would not prejudice the petitioner. His rights in the suit land would be protected. Since the suit in which the petitioner wants himself to be impleaded as a party is based on contract of sale and is for specific performance of the agreement of sale, his rights in the suit land cannot be decided in that suit. Therefore, he is not a necessary party to that suit. Learned trial court has been fully justified in dismissing the application. Consequently I find no patent illegality in the impugned order. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.09.2011 dinesh