HARWANT SINGH Vs. GURO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Civil revision is to the Order dated 7.8.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, vide which he dismissed the application filed by the applicant (petitioner herein) under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for being impleaded as party to the proceedings.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the applicant was a necessary party to the proceedings as such the learned court below should have allowed the application and it apparently amounts to an error of jurisdiction on the face of the record justifying the interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

(3.) In order to examine this contention, reference to the basic facts would be necessary. Harwant Singh-applicant had filed the application that Guro (now deceased) had entered into an agreement to sell regarding the property in dispute in favour of the applicant. In furtherance to the agreement to sell, possession of the property was delivered to the applicant of the entire land, as total sale consideration was paid. There was other litigation pending in relation to the same property. Smt. Guro had filed a suit against Gurdial Singh and others for declaration to the effect that she was the owner in possession of the land and for injunction. This suit was contested by the defendants in the suit. The applicant avers that the heirs of said Smt. Guro are not pursuing the matter properly and are likely to collude with the defendants, while the applicant has an interest in the property, as such he is a necessary party to these proceedings.