PAVITTAR SINGH Vs. RAI SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.11.2010, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khanna, vide which application filed by Respondents No. 2 and 3 under order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Code') for impleading them as party was allowed.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

(3.) Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that an agreement to sell dated 23.6.2004 was executed by Respondent No. 1-Rai Singh, father of contesting Respondents No. 2 and 3 in favour of present Petitioner-Plaintiff for selling the land in dispute. However, as he committed breach in the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell, the present suit for specific performance was filed by Petitioner-Plaintiff against Respondent No. 1-Defendant. During pendency of the suit, the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code was filed by Respondents-applicants No. 2 and 3, being sons of Respondent No. 1, for impleading them as party on the plea that the property in dispute is ancestral and coparcenary joint property in the hands of their father, i.e., Rai Singh, and that he is having no right to alienate the same, therefore, it is stated that agreement is not a valid one and hence, they are necessary party to be impleaded.