Civil Revision No. 3526 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3526 of 2011 Date of Decision: 1.6.2011 *** Rakesh Kumar & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Bhola Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit for declaration wherein the plaintiffs challenged the sale deed dated 27.4.1999 executed by Sh. Natha Singh in favour of the petitioners and one Suman Lata. When the case was fixed for rebuttal and arguments, plaintiff filed an application seeking permission to implead Suman Lata, the co-vendee, as defendant- party. Though the application was resisted by the petitioners, but the same has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 31.3.2011, leading to the institution of present revision petition. Heard. It is not in dispute that aforesaid Suman Lata is co-vendee of the sale-deed which is challenged by the plaintiff in the suit. Hence, she is the necessary party for the proper adjudication of the case and was left over only in good faith. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the alienation of the property challenged by the plaintiff is governed by the provisioins of Section 109 of the Limitation Act and since the sale deed was executed on 27.4.1999 and the possession was delivered, the impleadment of defendant, which obviously amounts to de-novo trial, the limitation would not comes in the Civil Revision No. 3526 of 2011 2 way of the plaintiff. Hence, the learned trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10(4) CPC. The case titled Naib Singh Vs. Harnek Mohd. & Khair Din & Ors. 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 97, as cited as learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the case in hand because in the aforesaid case a specific objection regarding non-joining of second vendor was taken, while in the instant case a general objection regarding non-joining of necessary party, without mentioning as to whom is the necessary party, who has not been joined, was taken. Therefore, the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from the aforesaid case. Dismissed. Since the matter pertains to the year 2006, the learned trial Court is directed to take up the matter on day-to-day basis and conclude the trial within six months. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE June 01, 2011 Jiten