IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4070 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: February 11, 2011 Krishan Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. Bhag Singh and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Madan Lal Saini, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. S.S. Swaich, Advocate for the respondent No.2. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.5.2009 (Annexure P4) passed by the trial court dismissing his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Initially, Mohan Singh was the owner of the suit land. He is alleged to have entered into an agreement to sell of the said land in favour of Bhag Singh. On breach of the said agreement by the respondent, Bhag Singh filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement wherein the petitioner moved the application for impleading him as party on the allegations that Mohan Singh respondent had earlier entered into an agreement to sell in his favour on 7.5.2005 and he had also filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of the said agreement which was decreed on 9.9.2008. He has further alleged that the property involved in the said agreement to sell dated 7.5.2005 comprises of the land including Khasra No.20//3 (8-0) which is now involved in the present suit. As such, if the suit for possession is decreed against Mohan Singh, then the decree for possession would be passed quo the aid khasra number also of which he is owner. As such, he has become the necessary party to claim his right over the land comprised in Khasra No.22//3 (8-0) on the strength of the decree passed against Mohan Singh and in his favour. Since the rights of the petitioner are in jeopardy in the present suit and if the suit is decreed against Mohan Singh respondent, then certainly his rights would be effected. Civil Revision No. 4070 of 2010 -2- *** As such, I consider it that the petitioner being necessary party is liable to be given representation before the trial court. Resultantly, I accept the petition, set aside the impugned order and allow the application moved by the petitioner for impleading him as party- defendant. February 11, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge