SURINDER KAUR Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 23.5.2004, Gurnam Singh, respondent -plaintiff, entered into an agreement with the petitioner for sale of a property in dispute. One Parminder Singh was the partner of respondent -Gurnam Singh. A sum of Rs. 25 lacs was paid to the petitioner as earnest money. The respondent -plaintiff has now brought a suit with the allegation that the petitioner had failed to execute the sale deed as per the term of the sale agreement and accordingly he is entitled to a decree of specific performance of an agreement in question.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a written statement admitting execution of the agreement and receipt of the earnest money. She, however, pleaded that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of Parminder Singh, co -contractee of respondent -Gurnam Singh. Plea also is that the said agreement has been cancelled/terminated. A preliminary issue on the basis of the objection regarding non -joining of Parminder Singh was framed on 17.7.2006. This order was impugned by the respondent -plaintiff by filing a revision before this Court, which was dismissed. Respondent -plaintiff, thereafter, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Parminder Singh and also the subsequent purchaser of the property in dispute as it also stood sold in the meanwhile. It is stated by the respondent -plaintiff that the presence of Parminder Singh and the subsequent purchaser is necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy. Prayer for amendment of the plaint is sought to challenge the sale deeds executed by the petitioner in favour of subsequent vendees.

(3.) THE trial Court, after hearing both the parties, has allowed the application filed by respondent -plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and also second application filed under Order 6 Rule 7 CPC for amendment of the plaint. This order is now under challenge.