ROOP SINGH Vs. SANTOKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -plaintiff has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 23.02.2011 (Annexure P -3) passed by the trial Court vide which the application of defendant no. 4 -respondent no. 10, for deleting his name from array of the defendants was allowed.

(2.) THE petitioner instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.01.2009, executed by defendant no. 1 in respect of 10 kanals 01 marla of the land, and to set aside various sale deeds in favour of rest of the defendants. However, defendant no. 4 -respondent no. 10 was impleaded as a party as one of the sale deed was executed in favour of defendants no. 5 and 6 and that sale deed was signed by defendant no. 4 -respondent no. 10 on behalf of the vendees. Defendant no. 5 -respondent no. 4 is the wife of respondent no. 10. The defendants are stated to have played fraud upon the plaintiff as huge amount was paid as part of the sale consideration by the plaintiff. The suit was instituted on 17.03.2010.

(3.) RESPONDENT no. 10 filed application dated 24.09.2010 (Annexure P -2), for deleting his name from the array of defendants on the ground that he is not a necessary party and has been impleaded simply to harass him. He is 73 years old person and a senior citizen. Learned trial Court observed in the impugned order that the sale deed dated 21.08.2009 purports to be executed by respondent -defendant no. 1 in favour of defendants no. 5 and 6 and respondent no. 10 is the father of defendant no. 2 and husband of defendant no. 5 and a relative of defendant no. 6 and he simply appeared on behalf of defendants no 5 and 6 for registration of the sale deed. Since respondent no. 10 acted as an agent of defendants no. 5 and 6 (vendees) only, he is not a necessary party and, therefore, his name was struck off.