CR No.4823 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4823 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.4.2011 Dharampal and others ...Petitioners Versus Ramavatar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.MS Cheema, Advocate for the petitioners None for respondent No.1. Mr.Vikrant Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 2.6.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jhajjar vide which application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for impleading Katar Singh as defendant No.2 in the suit, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial court. The facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that petitioners filed a suit against one Ramavtar respondent No.1, wherein they have sought possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell. Similarly, respondent No.2- Katar Singh also filed a CR No.4823 of 2009 (O&M) 2 suit for specific performance of agreement to sell against the same defendant Ramavtar. The suit property in both the suits is the same. The present petitioners filed an application for being impleaded as party in the suit filed by Katar Singh. However, the same was dismissed by learned trial court by observing that they are not necessary party in the said suit and however, if they feel that there is any connivance between Katar Singh and Ramavtar, they could join them as party in their own suit. The present petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment of Katar Singh as party in the suit filed by them. However, the same was declined by learned trial Court vide impugned order on the plea that Katar Singh -respondent No.2 is not a party to the agreement to sell and that suit could be effectively adjudicated without joining Katar Singh as party. Initially the present revision petition was filed against Ramavtar only i.e. vendor. However, as per order of this Court dated 26.8.2009, Katar Singh was also impleaded as party as respondent No.2. The present revision petition is not being contested by Ramavtar -respondent No.1 and however, respondent No.2 is being represented by counsel. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that Katar Singh is not a necessary party in the present proceedings. Rather, he is also claiming specific performance of agreement to sell of the same property allegedly executed in his favour by same vendor namely Ramavtar. Suit filed by the present petitioners is earlier in time, though, agreement to sell upon which reliance has been placed by respondent No.2 is earlier to the one executed CR No.4823 of 2009 (O&M) 3 in favour of the petitioners by Ramavtar. Law is well settled that the plaintiff is dominus litus. He is master of his own case. If a party is necessary for adjudication of the controversy in dispute, he can be impleaded as party and hence, the petitioners-plaintiffs have filed an application for impleading Katar Singh as defendant No.2. In view of these facts, learned trial court has committed illegality and material irregularity in refusing the application of the petitioners for impleading Katar Singh as defendant No.2 in the suit filed by them. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. Application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for impleading Katar Singh as defendant No.2 in the suit, is allowed. April 27, 2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) gsv Judge