PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff/ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated November 2, 2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for impleading Permod Kumar as a party to the suit. The original suit filed by the plaintiff- petitioner is for symbolic possession by way of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated February 20, 2003 regarding plot mentioned in the heading of the plaint. The plaintiffpetitioner claims that the agreement of sale in dispute was executed by Permod Kumar as attorney of defendant Bharat Bhushan. Bharat Bhushan has taken up a plea in his written statement that he had never authorized Permod Kumar to enter into an agreement of sale.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that Bharat Bhushan, defendant has sold the property in dispute through his attorney Permod Kumar and that presence of Permod Kumar is necessary for the just decision of this case. Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that Bharat Bhushan in his written statement in para 3 (on merits) has taken up a plea that the true position is that there was an agreement between Bharat Bhushan and Permod Kumar for sale of the plot owned by defendant Bharat Bhushan for a sale consideration of Rs. 3.54 lacs and that agreement was executed on January 31, 2003. On the basis of said averment it is claimed by counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact the property has been sold by Bharat Bhushan in favour of Permod Kumar on receipt of sale consideration in the garb of an agreement of sale as such the abovesaid Permod Kumar will be a necessary party.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and carefully considered his contention. So far as Permod Kumar is concerned, the agreement of sale dated January 31, 2003 in his favour will not make him an owner as Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that agreement of sale does not create an interest or charge in any property. In view of said circumstance, it will be premature to make any observation that Permod Kumar had become owner of the property or that he is a necessary party.