CMPMO No. 411 of 2009 9.12.2009. Present: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Anup Rattan Advocate for Respondent No.1. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 19th November, 2008 passed by the District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. whereby their application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment as party defendants in Civil Suit No. 6- S/1/2007, titled as Yog Raj vs Sunpa Devi, stands dismissed. The suit property was owned by Smt. Sunpa Devi respondent No. 2, herein. In terms of agreement to sell dated 16th December, 2005 the same was agreed to be sold to Shri Laxman Dutt, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners. It is alleged that in terms of the agreement the entire sale consideration stood paid by Shri Laxman Dutt to Smt. Sunpa when the possession of the property agreed to be sold was also handed over to Shri Laxman Dutt. Smt. Sunpa Devi through her general power of attorney Sh. Laxman Dutt, vide agreement dated 28.8.2006 also agreed to sell the very same land to Sh. Yog Raj who filed a suit for specific performance against Smt. Sunpa, without impleading Laxman Dutt or his successors-in-interest as parties. The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 6/S-1/2007, titled as Yog Raj vs Sunpa Devi. In the said suit Smt. Sunpa Devi moved an application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC praying for impleadment of the successors-in-interest of Shri Laxman Dutt, being the present petitioners as party defendants. Said application stood dismissed by the District Judge, Solan in terms of order dated 4th December 2007 for the reasons that no useful purpose would be served by impleading the LRs of deceased Laxman Dutt Sharma. Importantly, the present petitioners as the successors-in-interest of Shri Laxman Dutt also independently filed Civil Suit No. 113/1 of 2007, titled Naresh Kumar and others vs. Smt. Sunpa. This suit is also pending adjudication before the Court of Civil Judge, Solan. The present petitioners consequently moved an application for impleadment under order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the suit filed by Shri Yog Raj for the reason that they being the legal heirs of the Laxman Dutt and having been put in possession of the suit premises pursuant to an agreement dated 16th December, 2005 were necessary parties. It is this application which stands dismissed by the Court below in terms of the impugned order. The present petitioners allegedly are in possession of the suit premises pursuant to an independent agreement for sale having been entered into between Smt. Sunpa and Sh. Laxman Dutt. They are protecting their possession of the suit land on the strength of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The subject matter of the suit is same and similar. Sh. Yog Raj is seeking specific performance of the agreement pertaining to the very same property. Hence, no effective decree can be passed in the absence of the present petitioners. The questions involved in the suit include the controversy raised between the parties to the litigation. The presence of the petitioners is necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others, 2005 (6) SCC 733. The facts here are different. Sh. Laxman Dutt was not only put in possession of the suit property pursuant to an agreement for sale but the petitioner as his successor- in-interest have also filed an independent suit with a request for consolidation of both the suits. The Court below erred in coming to the conclusion, without any basis, that the petitioners have no interest in the suit property. It pre-supposed that Sh. Laxman Dutt had no independent right in the suit property and was actually pursuing the matter on behalf of Smt. Sunpa as her general power of attorney. It is, thus, erroneous presumption and the non-appreciation of correct factual position that the Court below has erred in passing the impugned order. The same is accordingly set aside and the petitioners’ application for impleadment is allowed. The Court below shall pass necessary further direction for allowing the petitioners to take further steps in the suit. Since the subject matter of the suit being same and similar, prayer of clause No.(viii) is also allowed. Civil Suit No. 13/1 of 2007 titled as Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Sunpa Devi and Civil Suit No. 93/1 of 2009/2007 titled as Yog Raj Vs. Sunpa Devi are consolidated and to be tried by Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Solan, where (Civil Suit No.93/1 of 09/07 is already pending. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 9, 2009(R)