HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff is in revision petition against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 21.11.2003, whereby Vaibhav Gandotra was ordered to be impleaded as a defendant.
(2.) THE plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 28.8.2000 allegedly executed by defendant No. 1 Naresh Kumar. In the said suit, an application was filed alleging therein by Vaibhav Gandotra that he is a co-parcener with Naresh Kumar defendant No. 1 and, therefore, his father has no right to enter into an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, it is alleged that he is a necessary party in the present suit. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court. The applicant as a co-parcener has no right to challenge the execution of agreement to sell. The right, if any, would arise only on completion of sale on the grounds permissible in law. He cannot seek any restraint order against the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family to execute any sale in favour of a third person, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar and another v. Ram Parkash and others, 1988(2) RRR 288 : AIR 1988 SC 576. Keeping in view the principles laid down in the said judgment, I am of the opinion that the applicant-Vaibhav Gandotra cannot seek impleadment in the suit on the ground that he is co-parcener. He has no right to challenge the action of Karta before the completion of sale. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the applicant-respondent Vaibhav Gandotra is dismissed. Petition allowed.;