Civil Revision No. 3678 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3678 of 2008 Date of decision: 25.05.2009. Virender Kumar ...Petitioner Versus M/s Express Projects Private limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advodate for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jashanpreet S. Gill, Advocate for the respondents ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The challenge herein at the hands of the plaintiff- petitioner, is to the orders dated 5.6.2008 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 10.6.2008 (Annexure P-8). Vide the former, a plea raised by respondent no.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was allowed by the learned Trial Court which (Trial Court) clarified, vide the latter order, that the impleadment of respondent no.1 shall be as a defendant ( the confusion arose because the order dated 5.6.2008 did not precisely indicate whether the impleadment would be as a plaintiff or otherwise). The facts, evident from the presently available pleadings of the parties, are as under:- Civil Revision No. 3678 of 2008 -2- **** The respondents no.2 to 7 had agreed to sell the land in suit to the plaintiff-petitioners, vide agreement dated 3.9.2004. As per clause 7 thereof, “it has been agreed by the parties to the suit that the purchaser will have a right to get the sale deed executed from the vendor either in his own name or in the name of other persons or to join other person with him and other party will have no objection.” The plaintiff-petitioner initially filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of impugned agreement dated 3.9.2004. Thereafter, during the pendency thereof, the plaintiff-petitioner entered into an agreement to sell the land in suit to respondent no.1 on 14.3.2005. The plaintiff-petitioner entered into that agreement drawing sustenance from the above quoted consensual clause which authorises him to get the sale deed executed either in his own name or in the name of any other person and the vendor shall not object to it. It is on the basis of the agreement dated 14.3.2005 that the respondent no.1 filed a plea for impleadment to the suit as a party. The learned Trial Court held that, in view of the consensual clause, the “third party has shown semblance of title or interest in the disputed property”. The plaintiff-petitioner is in revision. Shri O.P.Goyal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, relied upon Ved Parkash Vs. Amar Singh and another 1994 RRR (P&H) 86 in support of the plea that respondent no.1 could not have been ordered to be impleaded Civil Revision No. 3678 of 2008 -3- **** because he was not a party to the original agreement dated 3.9.2004. The reliance placed upon Ved Parkash's case (supra) is misconceived. In that case, one Khiyali Ram had entered into an agreement to sell the land to the petitioner therein on 29.6.1989. Thereafter, he entered into another agreement to sell the land to one Amar Singh. Khiyali Ram having failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner therein, the latter filed a suit for specific performance. The case was at the evidence stage when Amar Singh filed a plea under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. The plea was allowed by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner therein came up in revision. A Coordinate Bench of this Court held that Amar Singh was not a necessary party and that the presence of Amar Singh was not required to effectively and completely adjudicate the controversy involved in the suit. However, that ruling is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As noticed in the earlier part of this order, there is a consensual clause between the original parties which authorises the vendee to get the sale deed executed either in his own name or in the name of any nominee of his. In that view of things, the nominee does acquire interest in the disposal of the controversy at the trial. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the view obtained by the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted on any valid score. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 25, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge Civil Revision No. 3678 of 2008 -4- ****