Civil Revision No.38 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.38 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 5, 2011 Sita Ram .....Petitioner v. Ajay Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 8.12.2010, Annexure P2, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Narnaul. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Narnaul, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for impleading him as a party in the suit. Law is well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court can interfere only if there is some error manifest apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. In the present case as per own averment of the petitioner, there is an agreement to sell in his favour executed by Kali Charan -deceased and for that he has already filed a suit for specific performance. The present suit filed by Ajay Kumar and Parmod Kumar, plaintiffs is for initiation of proceedings against Kali Charan -deceased and some others, merely on the Civil Revision No.38 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ground that there is some alleged agreement in favour of the plaintiffs executed by Kali Charan deceased and for that they have already filed a suit for specific performance. It cannot be said that he is a necessary party to be impleaded in this suit. Moreover the revision petitioner has not placed on record copy of plaint of present suit. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, dismissed the application of the petitioner by observing as under:- “ Heard on the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC dated 8.1.2010. Shri P.C.Gupta, Advocate, has argued that defendant No.1 has filed an application for amendment of the written statement in para No.1G and 1H and wants to change the admission regarding execution of the agreement dated 22.2.2006. Therefore, as per agreement to sell he be also impleaded as party in the present suit. I find no merit in the application moved by the applicant reason for the same is that agreement to sell does not confer any title. Moreover, it is argued at bar that suit for specific performance qua same suit property is pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division) Narnaul. Therefore, the application dated 8.1.2010 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stands dismissed. Now to come upon 14.12.2010 for filing amended title as well as for consideration on application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.” Hence, in view of the above, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court warranting interference by this Court in this revision petition. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed. 5.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge