IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.7096/2008 Date of Decision:12.1.2009. Rakesh Kumar ..........Petitioner. Versus Sudarshan Kumar and others ..........Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Avnish Mittal,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-defendant no.2 has prayed for setting aside the order dated 15.9.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna, whereby the application filed by the respondent no.1- plaintiff for amendment of the plaint to the extent that one Adarsh Pal be impleaded as defendant no.5 in the suit, has been allowed. Briefly the facts are that respondent no.1-plaintiff Sudarshan Kumar filed a suit for specific performance of contract of land measuring 25 kanals 4 marlas detailed in the suit on the basis of agreement to sell dated 15.5.2002 executed by defendant no.1 Amarjit Singh in favour of the respondent no.1-plaintiff after adjusting the amount of Rs. 3 lacs paid as earnest money and on payment of balance amount of Rs. 6 lacs and for possession of the suit property; with a further suit for declaration that the other sale deed dated 4.12.2002 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos.2 to 4 is null and void; permanent injunction restraining the CR NO.7096/2008 2 defendants from alienating the suit property was also prayed. In the written statement filed by the petitioner-defendant no.2 as also defendant nos. 3 and 4 an objection was taken that the suit is bad for non-joinder of one Adarsh Pal, who was/ is a co-purchaser of the suit property vide sale deed dated 4.12.2002 impugned in the present suit. It appears that thereafter an application was moved on behalf of the respondent no.1-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint to implead said Adarsh Pal on the ground that his name had been inadvertently left out to be mentioned in the plaint. In the application defendant no.1-Amarjit Singh (original seller) made a statement dated 7.6.2006 that the application for amendment of the plaint be allowed subject to costs. Defendant no.2 as also the other defendants opposed the application on the ground that the plaintiff had knowledge regarding the name of the said co-purchaser Adarsh Pal before the filing of the suit and yet he chose not to implead him as a defendant. The learned trial court after hearing the parties allowed the application for amendment and permitted and allowed Adarsh Pal to be impleaded as defendant no.5 in the suit subject to payment of Rs.100/- as costs payable to each of the defendants being a necessary and relevant party as he also is a co-purchaser of the suit property from the original seller (defendant no.1). After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the pleadings, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order as the approach of the learned trial court is to finally and effectively determine the dispute between the parties and thus, in furtherance of interest of justice. CR NO.7096/2008 3 No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed in limine. 12.1.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge