Civil Revision No.6632 of 2008 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.6632 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on : May 18, 2009 Darshan Kumar ... Petitioner VERSUS Prit Pal Singh and another ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.HNS Gill, Advocate for respondent No.1. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Ram Lubhaya – respondent No.2 allegedly executed two agreements through different attorneys; one in favour of the petitioner/ applicant Darshan Kumar on 30.10.1996 and the other in favour of Prit Pal – respondent No.1/ plaintiff on 12.5.1997. Though, the respondent has alleged that the agreement dated 30.10.1996 had actually been executed by Ram Lubhaya, etc, in connivance with the petitioner to defray his rights, yet according to the respondent there is an award dated 7.5.2005 in favour of the petitioner passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat at Ambala. Since the petitioner by way of the said award has become the owner of the suit property, therefore, certainly, he is a necessary party to Civil Revision No.6632 of 2008 [ 2 ] contest the agreement dated 12.5.1997. It is something different that the respondent – plaintiff has not challenged the said award being collusive and executed by the petitioner – applicant in connivance with Ram Lubhaya, etc. In such circumstances, the petitioner – applicant is necessary party to contest the claim of Darshan Kumar – petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 20.10.2008 is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be impleaded as party – defendant in the suit. However, the respondent – plaintiff shall be at liberty to challenge the agreement as well as the award by way of amendment in the pleadings. May 18, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE