C.R. No. 1921 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1921 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.4.2009 Shri Surinder Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. Smt. Kulwant Kaur and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 17.3.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for being impleaded as party in the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2, has been dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell the property in dispute with respondent No. 2 in the year 2005. The sale deed having not been executed, respondent No. 2 filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance, which was decreed by the learned trial court on 15.10.2007. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court, respondent No. 1 preferred appeal against respondent No. 2. It is in this appeal that the petitioners filed application for being impleaded as party claiming that there is a prior agreement to sell dated 5.11.2002 executed by respondent No. 1 in their favour and they being in possession of the property having paid the entire consideration money, are entitled to be impleaded as party to the appeal to protect their interest. Vide impugned order, the application was rejected by the learned court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are necessary party to the litigation for the simple reason that there is an agreement to sell C.R. No. 1921 of 2009 [2] executed by respondent No. 1 in their favour regarding the suit property in which they have already paid the entire consideration money and in fact the possession of the property had also been delivered to them. As they were not in knowledge of the agreement to sell executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 and also the filing of the suit by respondent No. 2 against respondent No. 1, they could not take care of their interest. After having come to know of the pending litigation, they had filed suit for injunction against respondent No. 1, which is still pending and further had no other choice but to file application for being impleaded as party to the litigation. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. A perusal of the impugned order shows that in response to the application filed by the petitioners, respondent No. 1/defendant/vendor resisted the application by stating that she never executed any agreement to sell regarding the property in dispute with them. She neither received any consideration money nor the petitioners were put in possession of the property. It was stated that the alleged agreement dated 5.11.2002 was forged and fabricated document. Once respondent No. 1 herself had denied the execution of any agreement to sell with the petitioners and also receipt of any consideration money or parting with the possession of the property, there was no question of petitioners being interested in the pending litigation. Another fact, which is relevant, is that though the alleged agreement projected by the petitioners is dated 5.11.2002, but till the filing of the application for being impleaded in the pending appeal, no steps were taken by them for enforcement of the agreement. While concurring with the views expressed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 15.4.2009 mk