In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3037 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: October 14, 2009 Lal Chand .. Petitioner Vs. Babita and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Palwal. The respondent having come on the basis of the agreement to sell could not be treated as necessary party as he is not the owner but has come on the basis of the agreement to sell. The cause of action to file the suit could accrue to the defendant or to contest the suit only when some right is created in the property. Again, while reiterating it is observed that the agreement to sell does not confer any title so as to apply for impleadment of party in the suit. Even otherwise, the plaintiff is the dominus lite of the suit and could implead the party to the suit according to his wish. The trial court has not dealt with the aforesaid proposition of law while allowing the application. As such, it has resulted into miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in case Arun Kumar Agarwal vs. Radha Arun and another, 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 400, and Anil Kumar Singh vs. Shivnath Mishra alias Gadasa Guru 2005 (1) RRR 660. Having examined the aforesaid judgments, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Resultantly, I accept this revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure P-5) and dismiss the application of the respondents for impleading him as party defendant. October 14, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge