SATPAL SINGH Vs. VINOD KUMAR CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of both the aforementioned revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the same have arisen out of same order dated 17.11.2010, vide which application filed by respondent-Kulbir Singh, for impleading him as a party in the suit, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code') has been accepted. For the sake of convenience the facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 8335 of 2010.

(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 petitions are that present revision petitioners-defendants No. 1 to 3 entered into an agreement to sell the land in dispute owned by them with respondent No. 1- plaintiff-Vinod Kumar Chawla and respondent No. 7-Ashok Kumar Madan on 13.11.2006 and pursuant to the said agreement to sell, the present suit for specific performance of the said agreement was filed by respondent No. 1- plaintiff against the present petitioners. Petitioners also executed sale deed dated 15.5.2007 with regard to 2-1/2 acres of land in favour of Jaspreet Kaur, respondent No. 6-defendant No. 7, as per request of respondents No. 1 and 7. Suit for specific performance was filed regarding the remaining land. On notice being received by present petitioners, they appeared and one of the petitioners, namely, Satpal Singh suffered statement for himself as well as for petitioners No. 2 and 3, as their attorney, admitting the factum of execution of agreement to sell and receipt of earnest money. He also offered to get the sale deed registered after receipt of remaining sale consideration, as per the agreement. However, one of the vendees, namely, Ashok Kumar Madan, respondent No. 7, made statement, Annexure P6, that he was not having sufficient means and hence, he was not ready to comply with the terms and conditions of agreement to sell dated 13.11.2006. During pendency of the said suit, the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code was filed by respondent No. 2-applicant Kulbir Singh for impleading him as a party on the plea that respondent No. 1-plaintiff and respondent No. 7-Ashok Kumar Madan had further entered into an agreement to sell the land in dispute in his favour on 1.12.2006 on some higher rate and hence, he is necessary party to be impleaded. The said application was contested by present petitioners as well as by respondent No. 1-plaintiff. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff has denied the very execution of the said agreement and had taken the plea that the same is a result of fraud and forgery.