IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 05.07.2010 C.R.No.1213 of 2010 Varinder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Shavinder Kaur and others ...Respondents Present : Mr. G.L.Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. C.R.No.1214 of 2010 Megh Nath Bansal ...Petitioner Versus Shavinder Kaur and others ...Respondents Present : Mr. Karnail Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of aforesaid two revision petitions arising out of two separate orders passed by the learned trial Court on 16.12.2009, whereby applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by Varinder Kumar son of Megh Nath and Megh Nath Bansal for impleadment in the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell daed 7.4.2005 were dismissed. Jagdish Rai and Kulwant Rai sons of Megh Nath have purportedly entered into agreement to sell with Shavinder Kaur-plaintiff on 7.4.2005. In a suit for specific performance filed by Shavinder Kaur against C.R.No. 1213 of 2010 Jagdish Rai and Kulwant Rai, the applications aforesaid were filed, which were dismissed by the learned trial Court holding that the defendants are strangers to the agreement and cannot be impleaded as parties in the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioners are necessary and proper parties being co-sharers alongwith Jagdish Rai and Kulwant Rai. The fact that the petitioners are co-sharers will not entitle them to be impleaded in a suit for specific performance, as the plaintiff is entitled to seek specific performance to the extent to the shares agreed to be sold by Jagdish Rai and Kulwant Rai. The petitioners are strangers to the agreement to sell dated 7.4.2005, whereby Jagdish Rai and Kulwant Rai have agreed to sell their share in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. 05.07.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2