Civil Revision No. 241 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 241 of 2008 (O&M) Mukhtiar Kaur ..... Petitioner vs Gurnam Singh and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 19.10.2007 passed by the learned court below whereby in an application filed by respondent no. 2 under Order I Rule 10 CPC, he has been impleaded as one of the respondents in a suit filed by the petitioner claiming maintenance under Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 in forma pauperis. During the pendency of the application for permission to file the suit as an indigent person, respondent no. 2 filed application for being impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit, the same having been allowed, the petitioner is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a legally wedded wife of respondent no. 1 and on account of his not maintaining his family, suit for maintenance was filed. It was also prayed in the suit that respondent no. 1 be restrained from creating any charge on the property owned by him. The application filed by respondent no. 2 for being impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit, claiming that in fact respondent no. 1 had already agreed to sell a part of the property to him after receiving substantial amount as earnest money, was accepted. It was also claimed that respondent no.1 even conceded in a suit filed by him, however, later on having backed out from the statement, a fresh suit was filed for specific performance, which is still pending. The claim in the present suit was only for maintenance and restraining respondent no. 1, her husband, from selling or creating charge on Civil Revision No. 241 of 2008 (2) the property owned by him. In case respondent no. 2 had any grudge against respondent no. 1, he had independent cause of action for which he had already filed a separate suit. In any case, he was not a necessary party in the present suit. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that, in fact, respondent no. 1 agreed to sell a part of the land to respondent no. 2 on 21.1.2006 and the last date for execution of sale-deed was fixed as 4.8.2006. Respondent no. 2 filed suit on 18.7.2006 for possession by way of specific performance which was decreed on 29.7.2006 on a statement made by respondent no. 1 admitting the claim of respondent no. 2. In terms of that when the sale deed was not executed, respondent no. 2 again filed a suit on 16.8.2008 which is still pending in the Civil Court at Dhuri. Keeping in view the fact that part of the property in dispute in the suit had already been agreed to be sold by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2, he is impleaded as necessary party in the suit so that he could place the facts before the court for proper adjudication of the claim of the parties. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, in my opinion, the interest of both the parties would be safe guarded in case the trial court is directed to try both the suits filed by the petitioner for maintenance and by respondent no. 2 against respondent no. 1 for possession by way of specific performance together, as strictly respondent no. 2 may not be interested party in the suit filed by the petitioner against respondent no. 1 which is primarily for claiming maintenance. Considering the aforesaid facts, the impugned order passed by the learned court below impleading respondent no. 2 as defendant in the suit is set aside and it is directed that the learned court below will club both the suits and may try the same together so that the respective stand of the parties is before it to enable it to reach at just and fair conclusion. Disposed of. 6.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge