RATTAN SINGH AHLUWALIA Vs. KHUSHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RATTAN Singh Ahluwalia, plaintiff, challenges in this Revision Petition order dated February 8,1988 passed by the Subordinate Judge 1st Class Ludhiana dismissing his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 and under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) RATTAN Singh, plaintiff filed the suit of specific performance of agreement dated May 22, 1980 executed by Khushal Singh, respondent in his favor for selling the plot in dispute. Banwari Lal, Ashok Kumar and Dev Kumar, were also impleaded as defendants Khushal Singh had sold part of the property in dispute to them, in pursuance of two agreements entered into by Khushal Singh with them dated May 15, 1980 and May 22, 1981. Subsequently, it transpired that on those very two dates, as mentioned above. Khushal Singh had also entered into agreement to sell part of the plot in dispute in favour of Garib Dass Hans who had filed a suit against Khushal Singh and obtained an ex parte decree and in consequence a sale deed in his favour. Thus, application was filed for impleading Garib Dass Hans also as a defendant and to amend the plaint accordingly so that if the suit filed by Rattan Singh, finally succeeds, he need not have to file another suit against Garib Dass Hans. This application was dismissed on February 8,1988.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. D. R. Mahajan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that G. D. Hans is a subsequent vendee, who had obtained an ex parte decree in his favour and got the sale deed executed and he is, therefore, necessary party for proper adjudication of the suit in dispute relating to the interest of the plaintiff. Otherwise, if the plaintiff succeeds in the present suit he has to file a separate suit against Garib Dass Hans. On the other hand, it has been argued by Mr. H. S. Sangha, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, who has also filed a rejoinder to the Revision Petition, inter alia alleging that Garib Dass Hans is not a necessary party and the alleged decree obtained by him, ex parte is not binding on the respondents. On merits also, it is alleged that the plaintiff played a fraud on Khushal Singh in obtaining a receipt of Rest. 50,000/- without making payment of the same. The payment order which was delivered to Khushal Singh by Rattan Singh was not encashed, according to the bank, the said payment order had been lost as reported.