Sarabjit Singh vs Sarjiwan Kumar

L.N. Mittal, J.

C. M. No. 21879-C-II of 2012

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case

In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, defendant Sarabjit Singh has assailed order dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-1) filed by defendant-petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC (in short - CPC) for impleading Jagtar Singh and Baljinder Singh as party defendants no.2 and 3 to the suit, which has been instituted by respondent-plaintiff Sarjiwan Kumar against defendant-petitioner.

Plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs.22,00,000/-against defendant-petitioner, which includes Rs.11,00,000/-as refund of earnest money and Rs.11,00,000/-as damages. The defendant allegedly agreed to sell 79 kanals 04 marlas land to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 09.01.2006 and received Rs.11,00,000/-as earnest money. The defendant claimed himself to be owner in possession of the said land on the basis of some agreement in his favour, but the defendant has not been able to perform the contract.

The defendant-petitioner, in his application, alleged that in fact, both the parties as well as Jagtar Singh and Baljinder Singh were jointly carrying on business as Property Dealers and they used to purchase and sell land to earn profits by entering into agreement. In this process, agreement of the aforesaid land was entered into with Mohinder Singh etc. in favour of Jagtar Singh and earnest money of Rs.7,00,000/-was paid to vendors Mohinder Singh etc. by both the parties herein along with Jagtar Singh and Baljinder Singh jointly, although agreement was in favour of Jagtar Singh only. Subsequently, Jagtar Singh agreed to sell the land to Baljinder Singh, who further executed agreement thereof in favour of the defendant.

However, no money exchanged hands vide these subsequent agreements. In January 2006, dispute arose between the partners and the defendant demanded his share in the earnest money. Thereupon, his share in the earnest money was paid after obtaining his signatures on blank stamp papers, which had been used to prepare the impugned agreement by the plaintiff. It was also alleged that plaintiff had lodged FIR, in which plaintiff has effected compromise with Jagtar Singh and Baljinder Singh. On these averments, defendant sought impleadment of Jagtar Singh and Baljinder Singh as party defendants no.2 and 3 to the suit.

Plaintiff, by filing reply, opposed the application and controverted the averments made therein.

Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-6), dismissed the application moved by defendant-petitioner, who has, therefore, filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

At the outset, it has to be noticed that defendant-petitioner has not even placed on record the reply filed by the respondent-plaintiff to application Annexure P-1 moved by the defendant-petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the averments made in the application, Jagtar Singh and Baljinder Singh are necessary party to the suit. The contention cannot be accepted. Even taking the averments made in the application Annexure P-1 at face value, it cannot be said that Jagtar Singh and Baljinder Singh are proper, much less necessary party to the instant suit. They are not party to the impugned agreement. Consequently, they cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the instant suit. On the contrary, at best, Jagtar Singh and Baljinder Singh may be material witnesses to prove the defence of the defendant-petitioner regarding averments made in application Annexure P-1, but by no stretch, can Jagtar Singh and Baljinder Singh be said to be proper or necessary party to the suit. Application Annexure P-1 moved by the defendant is completely misconceived, meritless and frivolous and has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. There is no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.