BALJEET SINGH Vs. VIDYA RANI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in the present revision is the order dated 27.1.2015 (Annexure -P -3), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which the application filed by Amar Nath -respondent No. 2 to make him party under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC'), was allowed. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have also carefully gone through the file.

(2.) Briefly stated, Amar Nath claimed that Vidya Rani, who had executed agreement of sale dated 8.6.2009, was original the owner of land measuring 30 kanals 14 marlas alongwith Shakuntla Rani wife of Amar Nath in equal share. After the death of Shakuntla Rani, Amar Nath has become the owner of the said property. It is claimed that Vidya Rani had already sold the land more than her share. The lower Court after hearing both the parties has come to the conclusion that the applicant is proper party.

(3.) I am of the view that there is agreement of sale. The applicant has got substantial claim in the land and he is the proper person to tell the Court as to whether Vidya Rani was left with any title in the remaining part of the land or not. The possibility of any collusion between the plaintiff and Vidya Rani (defendant) cannot be ruled out. Hence, the presence of Amar Nath was necessary to bring all the facts to the notice of the Court. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned order.