INDERPAL SINGH Vs. KULJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 14.11.1991 passed in revision whereby the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been allowed to be impleaded as parties in the suit. The present suit was filed by the appellant on 5.6.1986 for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property executed by respondent No.3 in favour of the appellant. When the trial of the suit almost came to an end and the case was fixed for final arguments, respondent Nos.l and 2 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded as parties on the ground that the property agreed to be sold by respondent No. 3 was a joint properly. Trial Court dismissed the application but the High Court in revision allowed the application for impleadment of respondents I and 2 in the present suit for specific performance.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the High Court was not right in allowing the revision and directing to implead respondents I and 2 as parties in the present litigation specially at the stage of final arguments in the suit. It has been brought i, to our notice that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have already filed a suit for partition in which the present suit property is also the subject matter of the suit. It has been contended on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that in case suit for specific performance would be decreed, the respondents are likely to be dispossessed from the joint property for which they have already filed a suit for partition.