In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 7116 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 25, 2010 Surjit Singh and another ---Petitioners versus Harbhajan Singh and another ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate, for the Petitioners *** GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, Surjit Singh and Ravinder Kaur, is directed against the order dated 24.7.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which their application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the first appeal for impleaded them as parties, was dismissed. They came up on the plea that the suit has been filed by Harbhajan Singh-respondent No. 1-plaintiff against Bharpur Singh, respondent No. 2 -defendant, in respect of the house on the ground of specific performance of the agreement dated 11.8.1995, which was Civil Revision No. 7116 of 2010(O&M) -2- purchased by them vide registered sale deed dated 4.3.2005 from the defendant for a consideration of ` 3,75,000/- and they are coming in possession thereof. As is clear from the certified copy of the impugned order, the suit was filed on 6.8.2001 and decided on 28.2.2009. Thus, the petitioners purchased the house during the pendency of the suit. Any person purchasing the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit for specific performance regarding that very property, is not necessary party. Reference in that regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Gupta v. Kiran Girhotra 2008(1) Apex Court Judgments 549. The order passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, does not suffer from any illegality. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE November 25, 2010 PARAMJIT