Rajinder Singh vs Jaswant Singh and anr.

R.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Amloh, dated 30.1.1986.

Briefly, the facts are that Jaswant Singh defendant entered into an agreement dated 23.6.1984 with the plaintiff to sell the property for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/ in terms of the agreement. It is alleged that the defendant failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in spite of repeated requests. He, therefore, filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant which was contested by the defendants.

During the pendency of the suit, Rajinder Singh applicant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as a defendant in the suit. It was stated therein that Sarwan Singh defendant had entered into an agreement with him on 26.9.1986 to sell the property and had delivered the possession thereof to him in part performance of the agreement. Since then, he had been in its possession. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had earlier instituted a suit for injunction against the defendant praying that the dependent be restrained from alienating the property. In that suit, the applicant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party. That application was accepted. It is further alleged that he has got an interest in the property in dispute and in order to avoid multifariousness of litigation it was proper that he should be impleaded as a party. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court dismissed the application. The petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

Mr. Garg has argued that the applicant is not only a proper party but a necessary party to the suit as he is in possession of the property in part performance of his agreement dated 26.9.1983 which is much prior to the agreement alleged to have been executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant. He further submits that the applicant was also impleaded as a party in the earlier litigation between the plaintiff and the defendant and a revision against that order was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. I, however, find force in the contention of Mr. Garg. It is well settled that if a party has a bona fide claim regarding the property in dispute, he should be impeaded as a party (see 1984 Revenue Law Reporter 158). In the present case, it is evident from the narration of the facts given above that the petitioner has a prima facie claim to the property. In the circumstances, I am of the view that he should be impleaded as a party to the present suit.

For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned trial Court and order that the applicant be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. The parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 8.10.1986. The costs in the revision petition shall be the costs in the cause.