CR No. 1918 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1918 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.5.2009 Brij Lal .. Petitioner v. Taranjeet Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashok Khubbar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B S. Bhalla, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 24.9.2007, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for being impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 against respondents No. 3 and 4 for recovery of Rs. 10,90,000/- was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,90,000/-, in which application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC was filed for attachment before judgment, of the property owned by respondents No. 3 and 4. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioner filed application for being impleaded as one of the defendants by claiming that the property, which was sought to be attached by respondents No. 1 and 2, was in fact agreed to be sold by respondents No. 3 and 4 prior to the filing of the suit with the petitioner. The application was rejected and the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as respondents No. 1 and 2 are seeking to get the property owned by respondents No. 3 and 4 attached to secure the execution of decree, if passed against them. The petitioner will be materially effected with that, as the same had been agreed to be sold to him prior to the filing of the suit and on adjustment of the amount due to him from respondents No. 3 and 4. Even possession had been delivered to him. The submission is that unless he is impleaded as party, he cannot safeguard his interest. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 CR No. 1918 of 2008 [2] submitted that the petitioner cannot be considered to be either necessary or even proper party in the suit filed by them for recovery of the amount from respondents No. 3 and 4 as no relief as such is being claimed against him. The plaintiffs are dominus litus . They have right to choose who is to be impleaded as defendant. No one can force himself to be a defendant in the suit and ask the plaintiff to contest even against him, when no relief is claimed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The admitted facts are that it is merely a suit for recovery filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 against respondents No. 3 and 4. The petitioner, who is projecting an agreement to sell executed by respondents No. 3 and 4 in his favour regarding the property, which is sought to be attached by respondents No. 1 and 2 to secure execution of the decree, cannot be said to be a fact which would entitle the petitioner to become party in the suit. The petitioner cannot be said to be either necessary or proper party in the suit, which can proceed and can be decided in his absence. No illegality has been committed by the learned court below in dismissing the prayer made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 28.5.2009 mk