LAWS(P&H)-2011-7-134

RANDHIR SINGH Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

Decided On July 27, 2011
RANDHIR SINGH Appellant
V/S
KARNAIL SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 25.2.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kaithal, Annexure P4, vide which application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Code') filed by respondent no. 2- Saheb Singh for impleading him as a defendant in the present suit was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 4.2.2008 was filed by present petitioner-plaintiff against respondent no. 1-defendant on the ground that he executed an agreement in his favour for a total consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/- per acre and that Rs. 5,00,000/- was received by him as earnest money and the sale, deed was to be executed and registered on or before 16.5.2008. As petitioner-plaintiff was ready to perform his part of the contract, however, on refusal of respondent no. 1-defendant to get the sale deed executed on receipt of remaining sale consideration, the present suit has been filed. Vide order dated 12.12.2008, respondent No. 1- defendant was also restrained from further alienating the land in dispute. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 1-defendant he admitted the execution of the agreement to sell in favour of petitioner-plaintiff, however, plea was taken that though he was ready to perform his part of the contract, but it was petitioner-plaintiff, who was not willing and ready to perform his part of the contract.

(3.) Issues were framed. Part evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was also recorded when the present application was filed by respondent no. 2- applicant on 9.1.2010 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code for impleading him as a party on the ground that respondent No. 1-defendant had executed agreement to sell in his favour dated 18.1.2008 for a consideration of Rs. 13 lacs per acre and also taken Rs. 10 lacs from him as earnest money and that date of execution of sale deed was fixed as 17.6.2008. Further plea has been taken that respondent no. 1-defendant in collusion with the present petitioner-plaintiff has forged and fabricated the alleged agreement dated 4.2.2008 and hence, he is a necessary party to be impleaded in this case. The application has been contested by present petitioner-plaintiff on the plea that the alleged agreement in favour of applicant is a forged one as the applicant is first cousin of respondent no. 1-defendant and hence, the same is a result of collusion between both, i.e., respondent No. 1- defendant and respondent no. 2-applicant just to defeat the rights of present petitioner-plaintiff.