A single-paragraph order in a civil revision dismissing the petition for lack of merits on the ground that the petitioner was not a necessary party.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1623 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: March 12, 2013
Deep Chand
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Karam Chand and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate for the petitioner.
A.N. Jindal, J
The petitioner has sought to set aside the order dated 16.10.2012 passed by the trial court.
There may be a mutual agreement between Karam Chand and Deep Chand petitioner regarding payment of the earnest money, yet Deep Chand petitioner was not a party to the agreement with the respondent No.1, therefore, he cannot be said to be a necessary party to the suit. However, the mutual rights between Karam Chand and the petitioner could be settled by them in accordance with the mutual contract.
No merits.
Dismissed.
March 12, 2013 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was a necessary party to the suit as he was not privy to the agreement regarding earnest money.
Deep Chand
Karam Chand
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
