SURINDER SINGH Vs. NIRMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Nirmal Singh (now respondent No.1-defendant) had sold some land to Balkar Singh (now respondent No.4) vide sale deed dated 27.6.2002. Having come to know of the said sale deed, the present petitioner, who is son of non-applicant-vendor-respondent No.1-defenant filed a suit for declaration that the property in suit is ancestral coparcenary property and he was entitled to 1/4th share therein. Respondent No.1- defendant sold some more land vide three sale deeds of different dates. By way of application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, he wanted to amend his plaint in a bid to challenge even the subsequent sale deeds. By way of yet another application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, he wanted to implead the vendees of the subsequent sales as parties.

(2.) Both these applications were strongly resisted by the contesting respondents and were sequelly dismissed vide the impugned order.

(3.) By way of this revision petition, the petitioner-plaintiff seeks quashing of the impugned order and seeks to carry out amendments in the plaint. In addition to enlarging the scope of his suit, the petitioner-plaintiff also seeks to challenge the subsequent sale deeds and also seeks impleadment of vendees of the said sales effected by his father.