- (1.) The petitioner Lal Singh filed a suit for specific performance against the respondent No. 1. A plea was taken in defence that the suit was maintainable because the respondent No. 1 had exchanged the land forming subject-matter of the agreement to sell with his son and daughter-in-law. It was also stated that the possession of the land had been transfered to the son and daughter-in-law. Thakur Singh filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded as a party on the basis of an earlier agreement to sell, executed in his favour. This application was allowed by the learned trial Judge.
(2.) The petitioner has come up in revision and It has been argued on his behalf that Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. does not envisage the addition of such parties who might have an independent claim or an occasion to file a separate claim against one of the parties to the earlier litigation. On the other hand, Mr. Majithia has placed reliance on Jagir Singh and others v. Rameshwar and another, 1983 CurLJ 312, Civil Revision No. 2597 of 1981, decided on 14.9.1982, by R.N. Mittal, J. Therein it was laid down that a person who claims specific performance on the basis on earlier agreement to sell in his favour is a necessary party to the suit filed by another plaintiff who claims specific performance against the same defendant. I am in respectful agreement with this view. Even otherwise, if the case did not strictly fall within the purview of Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C then it was on to the learned trial Court to allow a party to be impleaded in exercise of its inherent powers. When a person who claims to be a vendee under an earlier agreement of sale is impleaded as a party, that would mean that the claim of all concerned shall be decided in one suit. In this manner multiplicity of proceedings would be avoided. I can interfere only if manifest injustice has been done to the petitioner because of the order passed by the learned trial Court. It is implicit in the situation that the learned trial Court will hear all parties before giving its decision, Thus, there is no injustice done to any of parties. In this situation, I cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The petition is therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.;