Surjit Singh and Another vs Harbhajan Singh and Another

Gurdev Singh, J.—Heard.

This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners, Surjit Singh and Ravinder Kaur, is directed against the order dated 24.7.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which their application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of CPC in the first appeal for impleaded them as parties, was dismissed.

They came up on the plea that the suit has been filed by Harbhajan Singh-Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff against Bharpur Singh, Respondent No. 2 -Defendant, in respect of the house on the ground of specific performance of the agreement dated 11.8.1995, which was purchased by them vide registered sale deed dated 4.3.2005 from the Defendant for a consideration of Rs. 3,75,000/-and they are coming in possession thereof.

As is clear from the certified copy of the impugned order, the suit was filed on 6.8.2001 and decided on 28.2.2009.

Thus, the Petitioners purchased the house during the pendency of the suit. Any person purchasing the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit for specific performance regarding that very property, is not necessary party.

Reference in that regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Choudhary and Others Vs. Reliance India Ltd. and Others, . The order passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, does not suffer from any illegality.

Revision petition is dismissed accordingly.