C.R.No.7677 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.7677 of 2011 Date of Decision: 13.12.2011 Bijender and another ....Petitioners Versus Krishan Kumar and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH, J By filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioners, who claim themselves to be the sons of defendant No.1/respondent No.2-Ishwar Singh, have assailed the impugned order dated 18.7.2011 (P.3) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rohtak vide which their application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as defendants has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 14.5.2005 and 18.5.2005 in respect of land measuring 53 kanal, 8 marla. The suit was opposed by the defendant-respondent C.R.No.7677 of 2011 #2# No.2 but during the pendency of the same, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the present petitioners, which has been dismissed, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the land in dispute is the ancestral co-parcenery property of a joint hindu family and the petitioners being members thereof have every right, title and interest in the same being co-parceners and thus the learned trial Court has grossly erred while rejecting their application for impleadment as party while passing the impugned order. It is further argued that defendant No.1-respondent No.2 had no legal authority to enter into the agreement being karta of the family as the same is without any legal necessity. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. It is not in dispute that the basis for suit for specific performance is the agreement dated 14.5.2005 and 18.5.2005 in respect of land measuring 53 kanal, 8 marla and defendant No.1-respondent No.2 is owner in possession of the same. It is also not in dispute that defendant No.1 is the Karta of the joint hindu family and the petitioners as well as defendant No.1-respondent No.2 are the members of that family. It is also not the case of the petitioners that defendant No.1- respondent No.2 is unable to defend the case filed by the plaintiff- respondent No.1 due to some legal disability. The law is well settled C.R.No.7677 of 2011 #3# that the plaintiff is the dominus litus and normally no one should be added as a party against the wishes of the plaintiff but although he may implead the parties as he choses for his cause. Undisputedly, it is the case of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 that the said agreements were executed by defendant No.1-respondent No.2 only and the present petitioners have nothing to do with the same. Moreover, in a suit for specific performance, the relief claimed is against the defendant on the basis of a Contract entered into between the parties and no relief is sought against the stranger to the agreement, who is not a party to the agreement. Thus a stranger, who is not a party to the agreement of sale is neither a necessary nor a proper party in a suit for specific performance and reference in this regard may be made to Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported as AIR 1987, (P&H) 197 and the relevant part reads as under: “In a simple suit for specific performance of a contract for sale a decree sought against the defendant is for the purpose of enforcement of the contract entered into between the executants. No relief is sought against strangers to the agreement for sale and indeed, there is no right of relief in such a suit against a person, who is not a party to the agreement. The question involved in the suit does not relate to any liabilities or rights of the strangers in the property in dispute. In such a case, the plaintiff would, in the event of his getting a decree for specific performance, get executed a sale deed which will bind only the executants thereof, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant and would not affect the position of eprsons who are nto aprties to the agreement. Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act clearly lays down that specific C.R.No.7677 of 2011 #4# performance of a contract may be enforced against either party thereto. So, in such a suit a person who is not a party to the agreement for sale is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It is well recognized that the plaintiff is the dominus litus in a suit. He should not, unless the provisions of any statute so require, be enforced to fight against a person against whom he does not claim or seek any relief.” The another argument that the defendant No.1-respondent No.2 has no legal authority to enter into an agreement referred above being without any legal necessity, is not sustainable in view of the fact that a Karta of a family cannot be restrained to alienate the property by a member of joint hindu family and reference in this regard may be made to 1989 PLJ 162, Amarditta v. Tulsi Ram. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case discussed hereinabove, in my opinion, learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners while passing the impugned order and does not require any interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. December 13, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE