IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1140 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 2.3.2009 Jatinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Karam Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated January 6, 2009, passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner for being impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2, has been dismissed. Briefly the facts are that respondent No.1 filed a suit against respondent No.2 for permanent injunction restraining respondent No.2 from interfering into his peaceful possession of the property. Respondent No.1 is father of respondent No.2. The petitioner filed application for being impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit on the plea that on July 21, 2003 the property in dispute was sold by respondent No.2 in his favour. The property in dispute was agreed to be sold by respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner vide agreement to sell dated July 21, 2003 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. As the entire consideration money has been paid, the possession of the property was handed over to the petitioner. It was so recorded in the agreement to sell. Once the possession of the property is with the petitioner he is a necessary party in the suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 for permanent injunction. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner I do not find any merit in the submission made. The suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 is merely a suit for permanent injunction where as per the written statement filed by respondent No.2 a specific plea has been taken that the property in question was agreed to be sold by him to the petitioner and actual physical possession thereof had been delivered at the time of execution of agreement to sell dated July 21, 2003. As the respondent No.2 has specifically claimed that the possession of the property was delivered by him to the petitioner at the time of execution of agreement to sell in his favour, in my considered opinion no illegality has been committed by learned Court below in -2- dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for being impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit filed by respondent No.1 for protecting his possession on the property. The revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 2.3.2009 JUDGE Reema