IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.1326/2009 Date of Decision:10.3.2009. Dharam Singh and others ..........Petitioners. Versus Baldev Singh and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. SD Bansal,Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH,J Petitioners-applicants are aggrieved against the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)Amritsar whereby their application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, for impleading them as party to the suit titled Baldev Singh v. Jaidev Inder Singh etc., pending in the said Court, was rejected. Briefly stated, Baldev Singh-respondent no.1-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6.6.2002 executed by defendants Jaidev Inder Singh, Jagdev Inder Singh, Yashdev Inder Singh and Smt.Yashoda Kumari (respondents 2 to 5 herein) in respect of land measuring 1 acre-2kanals and 15 marlas, described in the head note of the plaint. Baldev Singh-respondent no.1-plaintiff also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction, inter alia, restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating or mortgaging in any manner, whatsoever the property in question to any other person other than the plaintiff CR NO.1326/2009 2 and also restraining them from raising any type of construction over the suit land. In the said suit, the petitioners-applicants (Dharam Singh, Mangal Singh and Kashmir Singh) moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading them as party to the present suit. It was case of the petitioners-applicants that the agreement to sell dated 6.6.2002 has been executed between the plaintiff and defendants in continuation of earlier agreement to sell dated 15.6.1996 for the sale of land measuring 97 acres, comprised in khasra numbers described in para 3 of their application. According to the applicants, prior to execution of the agreement to sell dated 15.6.1996 Baldev Singh-plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein), being close friend of applicants-petitioners had approached them that in connection with the execution of the agreement to sell, he was in urgent need of an amount of Rs.10 lacs and for which they will be entitled to 17.5% share out of the total 25% share falling to the share of Baldev Singh-plaintiff. On the said assurance, the petitioners-applicants, thus, paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs to the plaintiff-Baldev Singh. It is averred that due to pending litigation qua acquisition of the suit land between the Improvement Trust, Amritsar and defendants, the sale could not be effected and after release of part of the land the subsequent agreement to sell dated 6.6.2002 was executed between plaintiff-Baldev Singh and the defendants. It is further averred that in recognition of the interest of the applicants-petitioners to the extent of 17.5% share in the suit land, an agreement to sell dated 9.1.2006 was executed by plaintiff Baldev Singh in CR NO.1326/2009 3 their favour, thus creating their interest in the suit land. It is further alleged by the applicants that to safeguard their interest they moved the application (Annexure P/7) for impleadment. Upon notice of the application, Baldev Singh-plaintiff (respondent no.1) herein denied the averments contained in the application and stated that the present applicants have been set up by the defendants to divide the rights of the plaintiff qua the suit land. Impleadment of the applicants-petitioners as necessary party to the suit was also denied. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record, dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC moved by the petitioners-applicants. Hence the present revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The present suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6.6.2002 has been filed by Baldev Singh-plaintiff (respondent no.1) against respondents-defendants 2 to 5 herein. Petitioners-applicants want to be impleaded as party to the present suit on the basis of agreement to sell dated 9.1.2006 allegedly executed by Baldev Singh-plaintiff (respondent no.1) in favour of petitioners-applicants. In my opinion, for the purpose of adjudication of the present suit, it is for the plaintiff-Baldev Singh,dominus litus, to see as to who are the necessary parties. As asserted, if the petitioners have got a cause of action, allegedly on the basis of agreement to sell dated 9.1.2006, which of course, is not subject matter of the present suit, they may, if CR NO.1326/2009 4 so advised, institute a fresh suit in accordance with law against Baldev Singh- plaintiff (respondent no.2). Further, in the absence of the petitioners- applicants, it is not understandable as to how the present suit cannot be adjudicated upon wherein the subject matter of the suit is agreement to sell dated 6.6.2002 and not the alleged agreement to sell dated 9.1.2006 executed by Baldev Singh-plaintiff. Moreover, it is not understandable as to in what capacity (i.e. plaintiffs or defendants) the applicants can be impleaded as party to the suit. I find no illegality with the findings of the learned trial Court that the petitioners-applicants being strangers to the present suit are neither necessary nor property party and hence not entitled to be impleaded as party to the present suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. No merit. Dismissed. 10.3.2009 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge