GULSHAN KUMAR Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GULSHAN Kumar plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order 6.5.2010, Annexure P/1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa thereby allowing application moved by respondent no. 2 Satish Kumar under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as party to the suit instituted by petitioner-plaintiff against respondent no. 1 ? sole defendant Anil Kumar. Petitioner has filed suit against respondent no. 1 for specific performance of the agreement to sell allegedly executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) RESPONDENT no. 2 in his application Annexure P/3 alleged that he has purchased 25' x 15' land with two double storied shops, of which the suit property of the instant suit is a part and therefore, applicantrespondent no. 2 is a necessary party to the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 contended that if a third party shows some semblance of title or interest in the suit property, such third party can be impleaded to the suit for specific performance of the contract. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumtibai & Others versus Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) & Ors., 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 524. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has also cited judgment of this Court in Inder Vikram Singh versus Dr. Harinder Pal Singh, 2008(1) HRR 292 to contend that a person interested likely to be effected is also entitled to be impleaded as party to the suit.