KIRPAL SINGH Vs. SUMIT SHARMA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed, dated 31.07.2015, rendered by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, an application moved by the petitioner under order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, to be arrayed as party defendant had since been dismissed. And the conclusion recorded in this regard reads, as thus:-

(2.) Concededly, plaintiff has sought specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.06.2010, purportedly executed by defendants No.1 and 2. For, the petitioner is not a party to the contract, neither any relief is being claimed nor the alleged agreement is enforceable against him. Nothing was brought on record to show that the petitioner was in possession of the suit land either. In any case, rights of the petitioner are not likely to be affected by any decision that shall be rendered in the present suit. Therefore, application moved by the petitioner was rightly declined as he was neither a necessary nor a proper party.

(3.) That being so, no interference is warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.