SANJAY VYAS Vs. DURGA DEVI VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff seeking setting aside of order dtd. 24/8/2017 (Annexure P-11) passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat whereby application filed by respondent no.2 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as defendant in the petitioner's civil suit has been allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is son of the (now deceased) respondent no.1 Smt. Durga Devi, real brother of LRs of respondent no.1, and brother-in-law of respondent no.2 herein. Subject matter of dispute in the civil suit is H.No.139, Eight Marla, Ram Nagar, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property'). It is the petitioner's case that in the Family Settlement entered into between the parties, respondent no.2 had recorded her statement on 24/9/2012 to the effect that respondent no.1 Smt. Durga Devi will either alienate the suit property within three months or will fix the value of the house and any of the two parties can purchase the same after making payment of half amount.

(3.) It is submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the said Settlement, and statement dtd. 24/9/2012 of respondent No.2, petitioner had entered into an agreement dtd. 12/11/2012 with the deceased respondent no.1 whereby respondent No.1 had agreed to sell the suit property to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.60.00 lacs. It is stated that the petitioner had even paid earnest money of Rs.10.00 lacs out of total amount of Rs.60.00 lacs. It is submitted that the petitioner was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, however, as respondent no.1 failed to execute the sale deed in favour of petitioner on target date i.e. 28/11/2013, the petitioner was constrained to file the present suit seeking specific performance of agreement dtd. 12/11/2012. It is submitted that the petitioner filed instant civil suit (Annexure P-3) on 22/7/2013, and in the written statement dtd. 24/9/2013 filed by respondent no.1 to the above said suit, the respondent no.1 duly admitted execution of the agreement to sell dtd. 12/11/2012 as well as receipt of earnest money of Rs.10.00 lacs. However, suit was contested on the ground that the petitioner was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.