IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CR No. 149 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.10.2011 ________________________________________________________________ BudhRam. .....Petitioner. Versus Raju @ Vijay Sharma & others. ......Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). Heard. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, neither it is necessary to issue notice to the contesting respondent nor there is any need for calling for records of the learned trial court. 3. Admittedly, the contesting respondent has filed a suit for grant of decree for specific performance against the petitioner on the basis of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the latter in favour of the former. In that agreement one Deepak Bhatnagar is one of the marginal witnesses. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and order 1 Rule 10 CPC, out of which the the present revision petition has arisen, was moved by the petitioner in the learned trial court seeking amendment of the written statement and impleadment of the said Deepak Bhatnagar on the averments that the alleged agreement of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... sale was in fact entered into between the petitioner and Deepak Bhatnagar and not between the petitioner and the contesting respondent. However, as is evident from the impugned order dated 05.08.2011, the agreement sought to be specifically performed, prima facie appears to have been entered into between the petitioner and the contesting respondent and the aforesaid Deepak Bhatanagar was only a marginal witness thereto. In such circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 05.08.2011 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the written statement and impleadment of Deepak Bhatanagar has been declined. 4. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed being without any merit, whatsoever. 5. In view of disposal of the main petition, CMP No. 1269 of 2011 shall also stand disposed of as infructuous. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 18th October, 2011 (virender)