KULDEEP KAUR Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGAL representatives of Harbans Singh ­ defendant no. 1, since deceased (earlier the sole defendant), have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 07.08.2013 (Annexure P-3), passed by the trial court, thereby allowing application (Annexure P-1), filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff for amendment of plaint and for impleading respondents no. 2 to 4 as parties to the suit.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed suit against Harbans Singh as sole defendant for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 04.11.2003 and also for possession of the suit land and for permanent injunction. Status quo order was passed in the said civil suit. However, partition mutation of the joint land was got sanctioned by the defendant and on the basis thereof, the land has been alienated to Gagandeep Kaur Mann, sought to be impleaded as defendant no. 4 along with Sita Ram and Jeet Ram as defendants no. 2 and 3. The said mutation of partition and consequent sale deed are also sought to be challenged in the suit by amendment of plaint being not binding on the plaintiff.

(3.) I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioners contended that defendants no. 2 and 3 are not vendors, but are co-sharers, and therefore, they could not be impleaded as party to the suit. It was also argued that the suit land was not sold to defendant no. 4, and therefore, proposed amendment of plaint could not be allowed.