IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 503 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.10.2009 Tarlochan Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Ranjit Kaur and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. HNS Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the lower appellate court vide which the application filed by him under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party in the appeal, was dismissed. The lower appellate court while dismissing the said application has recorded that the petitioner was not a necessary and proper party and lis between Ranjit Kaur and Sneh Lata can be decided without the presence of the petitioner as Sneh Lata had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14.11.1997. The relevant observations recorded by the lower appellate court read thus:- “Sneh Lata has filed the suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 14.11.1997 with regard to the house in dispute. According to her an CR No. 503 of 2009 -2- agreement to sell dated 14.11.1997 was entered into between the parties for a sum of Rs.7 lacs and she paid Rs.4 lacs as earnest money but the appellant did not execute the sale deed. The appellant denied the execution of the agreement in her written statement but ultimately the suit of respondent Sneh Lata was decreed for specific performance of the agreement and aggrieved from the same Ranjit Kaur has filed this appeal. Thus, lis between the parties in this appeal is as to whether the agreement to sell dated 14.11.1997 was executed between the parties and as to whether the respondent is entitled to specific performance of the said agreement. This lis between the parties can certainly be decided in the absence of applicant Tarlochan Singh. If he has got an agreement to sell in his favour at the instance of the appellant then he at the most could file a separate suit on the basis of said agreement which he has already filed. In the present appeal his presence is neither necessary nor required for just decision of the appeal.” In view of the above, no ground to exercise its jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. October 21, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE C.M. Nos. 4443-44-CII of 2009 IN C.R. No. 503 of 2009 Present: Mr. HNS Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. **** C.M. No. 4443-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.M. No. 4444-CII of 2009 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for placing on record the copy of the written statement dated 16.3.2001 filed by Ranjit Kaur as Annexure P-1. Annexure P-1 filed along with the application is taken on record. Application stands disposed of accordingly. October 21, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE