USHA RANI Vs. SHANTI PRAKASH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dtd. 16/7/2019 (Annexure P-3) P 3) passed by learned District Judge, Panipat vide which an application (Annexure P-1) P filed ed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 off the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter after referred to as 'CPC') for their impleadment as defendants/respondents in Civil Appeal No.367 of 2015 titled 'Subhash Subhash Chander and others Vs. Shanti Parkash Jain and others', ', pending adjudication, has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents No.1 to 4 (plaintiffs before learned trial Court) Court), instituted a suit No.141 of 2012 titled 'Shanti Parkash Jain and others Vs. Subhash ash Chander and others',, for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell and permanent injunction with averments that respondent No.5 Sub Subhash ash Chander (defendant No.1 before learned trial Court) on his behalf and on behalf of respondents respondent No.6 to 8 (defendants No.2 to 4) and respondents No.9 to 17 (defendants No.5 to 14),14) entered into an agreement to sell dtd. 23/2/2005 regarding the suit land detailed in the plaint and also received earnest money of Rs.35,00,000.00 (thirty five lakhs) under the agreement. The respondents No.9 No. and 15 did not contest the suit. The suit was contested by other respondents and learned trial Court ourt decreed the suit in totality totality. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15 15/9/2015 .09.2015 passed by learned trial Court, respondents No.5 No.5 to 17 filed the appeal No.3 No.367 67 of 2015 before the Learned 1st Appellate Court.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that during pendency of the appeal,, present petitioners came to know about the litigation and filed an application (AnnexureP--1) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment in the suit, asserting them to be necessary parties being the legal heir of Kundan Lal, the erstwhile owner of suit land and their rights and interest are involved in the suit land, being be co-owners. It is stated that upon on filing of the reply (Annexure P-2) P by respondents No.11 to 4 resist resisting the application, learned first Appellate Court without appreciating the facts and legal principles governing the issue, dismissed the application vi vide order dtd. 16/7/2019 (Annexure P--3).