C.R. No. 2635 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2635 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 13, 2009 Mehar Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Karamjit Singh and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Since the property which is the subject matter of the suit for specific performance has been mortgaged by the defendant to a bank and the presence of the bank, whose rights will be jeopardized by the judgment or decree passed in a case between the petitioner-defendant and respondent No.1-plaintiff, the bank appears to be, if not a necessary party but a proper party to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC especially when simultaneously a declaration has also been sought by the plaintiff- C.R. No. 2635 of 2009 [2] respondent No.1 challenging the mortgage of the property in dispute by the defendant- petitioner in favour of third party, the bank. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Arumakonda Prasad Vs. Dwarampudi Veera Venkata Rama Reddy & another, 1991 CCC 144. In the said case, no relief had been claimed against the third party i.e. mortgagee as such it was observed in the said judgment that he being not a party to the agreement of sale was not necessary party but in the present case the plaintiff has specifically sought a relief challenging the mortgage deed. As such the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Bharat Karsondas Thakkar Vs. M/s Kiran Construction Co. & Ors., 2008 (3) ICC 494 and Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others, 2005 (3) ICC 447. In the said cases, the third party had sought impleadment as a party in the suit and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that in a suit for specific performance, stranger to the contract is not a necessary party. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, it is apparent that in the present case the plaintiff himself sought the amendment of the plaint and simultaneously sought the addition of bank with whom the property which is the subject matter of the suit for specific performance, has been mortgaged. Besides this the specific relief has also been claimed qua the party which is sought to be added. In said circumstances, third party which is though not a necessary party, appears to be proper as the rights of C.R. No. 2635 of 2009 [3] the party are likely to be affected by adjudication of list between the plaintiff and the bank. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. July 13, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE