Harnam Singh vs Smt. Gurbachan Kaur and Another

G.C. Garg, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court whereby Satinderjit Singh was ordered to be arrayed as defendant in the suit.

The Petitioner filed a suit on 12-6-1987 for specific performance of agreement dated 15-5-1986 and for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from alienating her share in the suit property. Satinderjit Singh was arrayed as defendant No. 2 in the suit. After defendant No. 1 admitted the claim of the Plaintiff, the latter prayed that the name of defendant No. 2 may be deleted from the array of parties. It was thereafter that defendant No. 2 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for being impleaded as defendant in the suit, on the allegations that he has already purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 4-3-1987 from the attorney of Gurbachan Kaur defendant.

The trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, fallowed the application and directed the applicant Satinderjit Singh to be added as defendant to the suit. It is against this order of the trial Court that the present revision petition has been filed.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the trial Court acted with material irregularity and illegality in allowing the application of Satinderjit Singh for being impleaded as a party to the suit. He further submittted that no relief had been clamied against Satinderjit Singh and thus, the order passed by the trial Court be quashed.

I have considered the submission made by the counsel for the Petitioner and do not find and merit therein. The Petitioner filed the present suit on 12-6-1987 and it is before the institution of the suit that the property in question had been sold by the attorney of defendant No. 1 through registered sale deed dated 4-3-1987 in favour of Satinderjit Singh. Apart from this the Plaintiff himself had impleaded Satinderjit Singh as a defendant in the suit and the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the presence of the Applicant-Respondent was necessary to effectively adjudicate the dispute between the parties. I am of the view that the presence of defendent No. 2 will avoid multiplicity of proceedings and there is neither any illegality nor any impropriety in the order passed by the trial Court.

Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.. Since the proceedings in the suit were stayed by this Court, the Petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear in the trial Court on 7-5-1991. No costs.