C.R. No.4615 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4615 of 2009 Date of Decision.03.10.2011 Kamaljeet Kaur d/o Sh. Sunder Singh s/o Hari Singh r/o village Dabali, Tehsil Dawali, Distt. Sirsa .....Petitioner Versus Harnek Singh s/o Mal Singh s/o Waryam and others.....Respondents Present: None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The civil revision is against the order passed on 23.05.2005 seeking for permission to review and restore the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 and for impleadment of the petitioner. The application for impleadment had been filed in a suit for specific performance instituted by one Harnek Singh against Joginder Singh, who was the owner of the property and who was alleged to have executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff-Kamajit Kaur. The petitioner had applied for impleadment on a plea that in respect of the same property, which was the subject matter, she had a right equally and her right must be protected. The application was later dismissed as withdrawn on 27.02.2008 on the basis of alleged compromise entered into between the parties. The application for review and restoration C.R. No.4615 of 2009 -2- had been filed subsequently by the very same applicant stating that parties to suit namely Harnek Singh and Joginder Singh have defrauded her and in order to cause wrongful loss, the area which had been agreed to be left as a halfway was reduced so that she wanted her right to be established in the suit for specific performance. 2. The trial Court had dismissed the petition and a revision has been filed against such order. There is no representation for the petitioner today and it has been directed to be posted before this Court for disposal. At a previous hearing on 18.08.2009, the petitioner had been directed to file the fair typed copies of certain annexures and the the case had been adjourned sine die. The documents had also been produced subsequently and they have been directed to be taken on record and posted for arguments on 31.08.2009. The petitioner had sought for further time for arguments and on such a plea, the Court had adjourned the case sine die. 3. In my view, the order passed dismissing the petitioner's application was perfectly justified and there would be no reason to interfere in the same. In a suit for specific performance, any issue relating to title claimed by any third party in respect of the same land is alien for consideration. The only parties that could be before Court are the persons, who are privis to the sale agreement or any person, who is a subsequent transferee under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act for seeking the rights to be established in their presence. If the petitioner has any right as proprietor in relation to the said property, it could only be asserted in an independent suit and cannot be pressed for such adjudication through impleadment in a suit for specific performance. C.R. No.4615 of 2009 -3- 4. The petition was clearly untenable and the dismissal does not require any inrference in revision. The revision petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 03, 2011 Pankaj*