VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (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:- "The plaintiffs-respondents have filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 11.10.1995 whereby prima facie the defendant petitioner agreed to sell to the plaintiffs some agricultural land. Now the petitioner cannot turn around and say that the property in dispute is coparcennary. In case it is coparcenary, then the sons or any other person interested in the property may initiate appropriate proceedings claiming that the property was coparcenary, which shall be considered on merits, but the petitioner cannot. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present revision and the same is dismissed." The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the reading of the above order shows that there was an implied permission by this Court allowing the applicant-petitioners to move an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and this important fact has not been considered by rejecting the application. However, I find no force in this contention as this Court nowhere permitted the petitioners to move an application for being impleaded as a party either impliedly or otherwise.
(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.;