Civil Revision No. 7743 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7743 of 2011 Date of decision. 14.12.2011 Lachhmi Devi and others .... Petitioners Versus Bikram Singh ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate for for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. The defendants have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.10.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi, vide which application for impleading Lajwanti as defendant no.6 under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and for amendment of plaint required as a consequence of her impleadment has been allowed, subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs. The plaintiff Bikram Singh had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 30.03.2005, executed in his favour by the defendants regarding the land in dispute. In the said suit, the Civil Revision No. 7743 of 2011 --2-- plaintiff applied for impleading Lajwanti as defendant no.6 and for carrying out the consequential amendments in the plaint. His claim in the application is that the defendants entered into an agreement of sale with him in respect of the suit property. This agreement was executed when the mutation in respect of inheritance of Dulari Devi had not been sanctioned in favour of defendants no1 to 5. The defendants had contested the issue of mutation with Lajwanti as Lajwanti had produced a forged and factitious unregistered will before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Dera Bassi. Defendants no.1 to 5 then entered into a compromise with Lajwanti in appeal and with a view to deprive the plaintiff of a right in the suit property had conceded the claim of Lajwanti. Now Lajwanti has got mutation sanctioned in her favour in respect of the suit land on the basis of the said will. On account of this development, the plaintiff wanted to implead Lajwanti as defendant no.6 and wanted to incorporate the consequential amendment in the plaint. The application is opposed and is denied to be maintainable. Lajwanti is claimed to be neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present suit for the reason that she is not a party to the alleged agreement of sale. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court allowed the application. I have heard Mr.Gurmeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully. Civil Revision No. 7743 of 2011 --3-- Leaned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Lajwanti is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. According to him, the suit is for specific performance of the agreement of sale, entered between the plaintiff and defendants and, therefore, Lajwanti is not a necessary party. After suffering an order against them and in favour of Lajwanti before the Appellate Authority, the defendants are left with no interest in the suit land. If they are left with no interest in the suit land and have lost the same in favour of Lajwanti, they have no ground to even oppose the application for impleading of Lajwanti as a defendant in the suit. They are not even required to oppose the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance because they are no more owners of the suit land. It is not a case where the plaintiff has brought a suit for possession by pre-emption which could be defeated by any lawful means. The plaintiff could challenge the proceedings in which defendants have got the land transferred to Lajwanti by way of a compromise on the basis of an unregistered will. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that Lajwanti is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. Hence, I find no illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, the revision petition is found to have no merit and is dismissed. 14.12.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge