BALBIR SINGH Vs. ANOKH SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) is to the order dated 24.1.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, dismissing the application of the petitioners in which prayer for impleading them as party defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code was declined.

(2.) FACTS necessary to decide the controversy raised in the present petition are that 'plaintiff -respondent No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 507 dated 4.4.1998 against defendant respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for specific performance of the agreement to sell executed between them on 24.6.1997 in respect of the suit land. Plaintiff -respondent No. 1 alleged in his suit that defendant -respondents are the owners of the suit land and in that capacity they entered into agreement to sell which was executed on 24.6.1997. The sale price of suit land was fixed at Rs. 1,25,000/ - per killa and the sale deed was to be executed on or before 1.12.1997. Defendant -respondent Nos,2 and 3 contested the suit by filing their written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code with the averments that defendant -respondent Nos,2 and 3 had entered into an agreement with their father (predecessor in interest) on 1.1.1998 to sell the suit land and had also received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - as earnest money. It was further alleged that on 16.4.1998 defendant -respondent Nos,2 and 3 had executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioners with the consent of their father Bakhshish Singh. On account of the interim order of stay issued on 7,4.1998 by the Civil Judge, the sale deed was not registered. It was further averred that the total sale consideration of Rs. 4,70,000/ - had been paid to the defendant -respondent Nos.2 and 3. The application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the Civil Judge on the following grounds:

(3.) SHRI Arihant Jain has further pointed out that once defendant -respondent Nos.2 and 3 have executed sale deed in their favour they would not even be able to file a separate suit as has been erroneously observed by the Civil Judge because there would be no lis between the petitioners and defendant -respondent Nos.2 and 3. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Satish Kumar v. Gurbir Singh Ghnkan and Ors., (2001)127 P.L.R. 367 and Mohinder Kaur and Anr. v. Jai Gobinda Enterprises and Ors., (2001)128 P.L.R. 555.