CR No.6050/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6050/2011 Date of decision: 30.09.2011. Bharat Juneja ....................Petitioner v. Usha Arora and others .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Vipul Dharmani,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 28.7.2010(P2), whereby his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a defendant has been dismissed. It is apparent that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.3.2005 was filed by respondent no.1/plaintiff-Usha Arora against Sudesh Juneja, defendant in respect of sale of a plot bearing no.382, Sector 8, Urban Estate, Karnal. It is claimed that the said plot was jointly allotted to the mother and father of the petitioner-applicant i.e. Mrs.Sudesh Juneja and Sh.K.L.Juneja. On the death of K.L.Juneja- father of the petitioner, petitioner had inherited a right in the property since Mr.KL Juneja had died intestate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is required to be impleaded in the said suit in view of his right, title and interest in the suit property. CR No.6050/2011 2 After hearing the learned counsel, I find no substance in the plea raised. It has been specifically recorded by the learned Executing Court that after the death of Mr.KL Juneja, the Haryana Urban Development Authority had transferred the ownership of the plot in question in favour of defendant Smt.Sudesh Juneja making her absolute owner of the property. A conveyance deed was also effected in her favour to that effect. In view of the fact that the suit for specific performance of the agreement is between the proposed vendor-Sudesh Juneja and vendee-plaintiff, the petitioner who has no right or interest in the suit property cannot be viewed by any stretch of imagination to be a necessary or proper party. At the time of arguments, learned counsel is unable to show any right or interest in the suit property by referring to any record. Thus, in my considered opinion, the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Accordingly, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed. 30.9.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge