SURINDER SINGH Vs. KARNAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure P-4), passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-3) moved by petitioner Surinder Singh under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) for impleading him as party to the suit, which has been instituted by respondent no.1-plaintiff Karnail Singh against proforma respondent no.2 Raj Singh defendant, for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.11.2008 along with other consequential reliefs, instant revision petition has been filed to challenge the said order (Annexure P-4).

(2.) The petitioner alleged in his application that defendant has already entered into agreement dated 18.07.2008 regarding the suit property in favour of petitioner and the impugned agreement pleaded by respondent no.1-plaintiff is ante dated agreement prepared later on to harm the interest of the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner claimed to be necessary party to the suit.

(3.) Respondent no.1-plaintiff opposed the application by filing reply. However, unfortunately, counsel for the petitioner did not think it proper to place the said reply on the record of the instant revision petition for perusal of this Court.