C.R. No. 841 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 841 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 4, 2011 Naresh Kumar …..Petitioner Vs. Smt.Sukhdevi and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner- Naresh Kumar has filed a suit No. 523 of 2009 on December 1, 2009 against Santosh Rani and others for specific performance of agreement of sale dated July 11, 2008 with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The said suit is pending. During the pendency of the said suit, Sukhdevi has filed another suit against Gobind Singh and others for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in her actual physical cultivating possession of a property measuring 23 kanals 8 marlas C.R. No. 841 of 2011 (O&M) [2] claiming that she had purchased the property vide registered sale deed dated November 13, 2009 from Santosh Rani. The said Sukhdevi has also entered into a compromise. The said suit has been decided on the basis of compromise and agreement dated November 24, 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner has got a grievance that in order to defeat his rights in his civil suit which is prior in time, Sukhdevi has filed a suit for injunction and the compromise entered into between the parties at the back of the petitioner would prejudice the civil rights of the petitioner. Sukhdevi and Gobind Singh etc. have entered into a compromise without impleading the petitioner as a party who has got interest in the property in dispute on the basis of an agreement of sale. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the various documents. Without expression of any opinion whether Sukhdevi and Gobind Singh and others have colluded together to prejudice the rights of the petitioner allegedly arisen from an agreement of sale in his favour, it is sufficient to observe that it is settled principle of law that any judgment, decree or order passed against a person by not impleading him as a party will not hamper his right, title or interest. A person who is not a party to a litigation is not bound by the decision of a Court unless and until the judgment is in the nature of being a judgment of rem. Any judgment and decree passed in case Sukhdevi Vs. Gobind Singh and others or any order passed in the said litigation will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the petitioner. The petitioner has got a remedy either to challenge any C.R. No. 841 of 2011 (O&M) [3] observation in any judgment or order so far as it prejudices his right either by filing a suit for declaration or by seeking his impleadment as party in accordance with law. Since the petitioner is not a party in the proceedings initiated by Sukhdevi against Gobind Singh and others, he does not have any locus standi to file a revision petition against any observations prejudicing his rights. Leaving the petitioner to avail any other alternative remedy available to him, this petition is dismissed. February 4, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE