KANCHAN SINGH KUSHWAH Vs. ABDUL HANIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 07/09/2012 passed by III Additional Civil Judge, Class-II, Guna in civil suit No. 10A/2012 whereby petitioner's application under Order I Rule 3 CPC has been rejected.

(3.) Facts necessary for disposal of this petition in narrow compass are that a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell has been filed by one, Abdul Hanif S/o Abdul Saleem against Daulat Singh S/o Shobharam in respect of land falling in survey No. 52/3 admeasuring 0.270 hectare situated in village Saktpur, Patwari Halka No. 74, tehsil and district Guna (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'). The petitioner/applicant has filed an application under Order I Rule 3 CPC inter alia contending that a suit for declaration, possession and partition between the petitioner and defendant, Daulat Singh is pending consideration before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Guna. It is further submitted that the petitioner and defendant, Daulat Singh are son and father and, therefore, they are interested parties. As such, the petitioner/applicant ought to have been arrayed as defendant. Hence, the applicant be ordered to be added as defendant in the lis. The said application was contested with the submission that the agreement to sell was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, Daulat Singh in respect of the suit land. The applicant is not party to the agreement to sell. The applicant has no concern with the aforesaid survey No. 52. No partition has been effected between the defendant and the applicant and, therefore, the application is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.