CR No.5690 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5690 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.3.2009 Ravinder Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kumar and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for respondent No.3. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendant's revision petition challenging the order dated 8.9.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jalandhar allowing the application filed by the plaintiff-respondents for impleading Mukul Joshi (respondent No.3) as necessary party and for consequent amendment of plaint. As per the averments made in the petition, the plaintiff- respondents filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner for restraining him from alienating, creating charge over specific portion of the suit land without partition and from changing the nature of the property by raising any construction or causing damage to the property. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 filed an application to implead Mukul Joshi-respondent No.3 in the suit as necessary party and also to amend the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs had come to know that defendant had already entered into an CR No.5690 of 2008 2 agreement to sell with Mukul Joshi-respondent No.3 on 18.10.2007 in respect of the part of the property in dispute and the defendant was not competent to enter into agreement to sell, qua property in dispute which is an undivided residential property. Thus, Mukul Joshi was necessary to be impleaded in the present suit and therefore, the plaintiff-respondents wanted to implead Mukul Joshi as defendant No.2 and further adding that defendant No.1 be restrained from delivering the possession to defendant No.2 or any other person. It was further pleaded in the application that the case is at the preliminary stage and no prejudice will be caused to either of the parties if the application is allowed. The trial Court vide the impugned order allowed the application observing that since defendant had entered into an agreement to sell with Mukul Joshi qua part of the property in dispute, therefore, he is a necessary party and in his absence the questions involved in the present suit cannot be completely adjudicated upon. Challenging the aforesaid order of the trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order is not sustainable as respondent No3-Mukul Joshi had no right or interest in the disputed property till date and was not at all a necessary party to decide the controversy in the present case. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed by the petitioner that there was an agreement to sell dated 18.10.2007 regarding the property in dispute in favour of Mukul Joshi for which he had separately filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner which is pending adjudication in the Civil Court. In view of this fact alone, no fault can be found with the impugned order as the trial Court in its opinion found that in order to enable the Court to factually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions CR No.5690 of 2008 3 involved in the suit, it was necessary to implead aforesaid Mukul Joshi as defendant No.2. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that since the subject matter in both the cases i.e. the present suit and the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner against Mukul Joshi is the same, it will be in the judicial propriety that both the cases should be clubbed and heard together. However, I find that no such prayer had been made by the petitioner for consolidation of the cases before the trial Court. If any such application is filed, there is no doubt that the same shall be disposed of by the trial Court in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the civil revision is dismissed. March 16, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE