Civil Revision No. 3629 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3629 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.9. 2009 Kuldeep Singh and another ......petitioners Versus Urjinder Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. HPS Ghuman, Advocate. for the petitioners. Mr.Tejinder Joshi, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** SABINA, J. Vide this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.10.2008 (Anneuxre P-3) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Nabha. Plaintiff Urjinder Singh filed a suit for declaration challenging the Will dated 21.1.2001 executed by Dara Singh. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff moved an application under Civil Revision No. 3629 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading Balbir Singh as defendant No.4 in the suit as defendant No.1 sold 73 kanals 17 marlas of the land to defendant No.2 and Balbir Singh vide sale deed dated 13.2.2008. Vide the impugned order, the said application was allowed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the application was liable to be dismissed as the vendees could not be impleaded as a party to the suit. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Bibi Zubaida Khatoon vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another with Amichand Aggarwal vs. Nabi Hasan AIR 2004 SC 173; Sarvinder Singh vs. Dalip Singh and others (1996) Supp 4 SCR 271 and Jagdish Chander and another vs. Om Piari and others (2008) 152 PLR 463. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has submitted that the plaintiff is the master of his suit and by way of amendment could have impleaded the vendees as a party as during the pendency of the suit, the property in dispute had been sold by defendant No.1 to Balbir Singh. Gurmeet Kaur-defendant No.1 had challenged the impugned order by way of Civil Revision No.186 of 2009 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 29.5.2009 Civil Revision No. 3629 of 2009 (O&M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for interference by this Court. In the present case, admittedly the plaintiff had filed a suit challenging the Will dated 21.1.2001 in dispute. However, during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 Gurmeet Kaur sold the property in dispute to Balbir Singh. Earlier plaintiff No.1 Arshwinder Singh was allowed to be arrayed as a defendant by way of amendment vide order dated 16.3.2007. The application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 2.2.2008 and the same was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 13.2.2008 and by this Court in revision petition vide order dated 12.6.2008. By way of amendment, the plaintiff wants to challenge the sale deed dated 13.2.2008 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Balbir Singh during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff also wants to impleaded Balbir Singh as a party. Learned trial Court rightly held that the plaintiff was within his right to implead such persons as may be necessary for effective adjudication of the list between the parties. Moreover, the suit is at an initial stage. The impugned order has already been upheld by this Court in Civil Revision No.186 of 2009 vide order dated 29.5.2009. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners fail to advance the case of the petitioners as these are based on different facts. In the said cases, the applications for being impleaded as a party were moved by the Civil Revision No. 3629 of 2009 (O&M) 4 vendees and it was held that the vendees could not move an application for being impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as the principle of lis pendence will apply. However, in the present case, the plaintiff wants to implead the vendees as a party and has challenged the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the vendee Balbir Singh. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality which may call inference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 14, 2009 anita