KULWINDER SINGH Vs. GURMUKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision has been filed against the order dated 4.4.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Patiala, vide which the application moved by the petitioners for being impleaded as defendants in a suit for specific performance has been dismissed.

(2.) THE learned trial Court dismissed the application by observing that prior to filing of the present application by the applicants, the defendant Surjit Singh respondent No. 4 herein moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the written-statement claiming that the suit property was ancestral in nature. The said application was dismissed. The said defendant in the suit filed a revision petition bearing No. 820 of 2005 against the said order which was dismissed with the following observations:-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Devi Dayal v. Manohar Lal, 1982 CLJ 83 contended that once a specific performance of an agreement qua coparcenary property cannot be enforced, the applicant was to be treated as a necessary party and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Court below cannot be sustained. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also misconceived. In the said judgment, this Court has not held that a party can be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC.