SATWANT KAUR Vs. GURMAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will disposed of Civil Revisions 150 of 1992 and 1032 of 1993 as these are directed against similar orders.

(2.) Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit against Prem Singh and others for specific performance of agreements to sell dated 6.4.1983 and 5.10.1983 in respect of the property as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. Prem Singh has since died. During the pendency of the suit, applicant Gurmail Singh, respondent 1 herein moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party to the suit. It was averred that Prem Singh executed an agreement dated 12.4.1984 for sale of land measuring 100 sq. yards in favour of Rakha Singh father of the applicant. Land measuring 100 Sq. Yards agreed to be sold by Prem Singh forms part of the property in the present suit. Since, Prem Singh did not execute the sale deed, Rakha Singh filed a suit for specific performance. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 29.8.1990. It was thus submitted that in view of this decree, the applicant has become owner of that part of the land and, any decision rendered in the present suit would affect the right of the applicants and he is, therefore, a necessary and proper party to the suit. Similarly, applicant Harpinder Singh, respondent 1 in Civil Revision 1032 of 1993 also moved an application for being impleaded as a party to the suit. It was alleged that Piara Singh had executed an agreement dated 4.5.1984 for sale of land measuring 75 sq. yards in his favour, which is again a part of the property involved in the present suit, and he had to file a suit for specific performance. The suit was decreed. The sale deed was got executed through the court and thus the applicant has vested right in that part of the property being subsequent vendee. Thus, it was prayed that the applicant is a necessary and proper party because in the eventuality of the present suit being decreed, the decree so passed will be a nullity to the extent of the property purchased by the applicant.

(3.) Trial Court on a consideration of the matter, allowed the application by two separate orders dated 20.8.1992. The application were impleaded as defendants in the suit and they were permitted to file written statement and to cross-examine the witnesses already examined by the plaintiff. Hence, these revisions at the instances of the plaintiff.