Petitioner challenged the dismissal of her application to be impleaded in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell involving her husband's property. The court held she was a third party to the agreement and dismissed the revision.
The petition for revision challenging the dismissal of the impleadment application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No. 2870 of 2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2870 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.5.2012
Charanjit Kaur
.. Petitioner
v.
Raj Mohd. and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 17.4.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for being impleaded as one of the defendant in the suit, was dismissed.
The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2, husband of the petitioner, for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell. The aforesaid suit was filed on 14.1.2008. The petitioner sought herself to be impleaded as party on the ground that in a suit filed by her on 29.2.2008, ex-parte decree was passed against respondent No. 2, her husband, regarding maintenance in which property in dispute was also attached, hence she is necessary party in the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by respondent No. 1, which is pertaining to the same property.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to the agreement to sell allegedly executed by respondent No. 2, husband of the petitioner, in favour of respondent No. 1. Being a third party to the agreement to sell, she cannot be said to be a necessary or proper party to be
Civil Revision No. 2870 of 2012 [2]
impleaded in the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. The learned court below has not committed any illegality in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
11.5.2012 mk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a third party to an agreement to sell can be impleaded as a necessary party in a suit for specific performance filed by the vendee.
Whether the dismissal of the application for impleadment involved any illegality by the court below.
Charanjit Kaur
Raj Mohd.
another
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
