Civil Revision No. 4427 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4427 of 2009 Date of decision:7th August, 2009 Bhadar Khan .....Petitioner Versus Refique Khan and another .....Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajive Bhalla, J. The petitioner challenges the order dated 1.04.2009, passed by the Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Malerkotla, whereby, the trial court has allowed the application filed by respondent no. 2 for his being impleaded as a party. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in a suit for specific performance, a stranger to the agreement to sell cannot be impleaded as a party and therefore, the courts below committed an error of jurisdiction, by allowing the application, filed by respondent no. 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. It appears from the impugned order that the respondent no. 2 is a decree holder, with respect to a suit for recovery, decreed against Civil Revision No. 4427 of 2009 2 respondent no. 1. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of respondent no. 1. The trial court has held that the agreement to sell, subject matter of the present suit, appears to be ante dated and filed with the sole object of defeating the execution of the decree passed in favour of respondent no. 2. It would also require notice that respondent no. 1 has failed to appear before the trial court and has been proceeded against ex parte. In view of the apparent collusion between the petitioner and respondent no. 1, the trial court did not commit any error in allowing the application of respondent No.2 for being impleaded as a party. No merit dismissed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 7th August, 2009 SKaushik