VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing an application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded as a party to suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff respondents.
(2.) THE petitioners applicant claimed right in the property on the plea that payment for purchase was made by the company and in fact the agreement to sell was executed by the plaintiff respondent on behalf of the company. The said application was contested by the plaintiff respondents wherein the averments made in the application were denied. The learned trial Court dismissed the application by holding that the petitioner was not necessary or proper party to the suit for specific performance as its presence were not necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties.
(3.) SHRI O.P. Goel, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently contended that the order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained as the documents had been produced on record to show that the payment was made by the company and not by the plaintiff. It was further claimed that in part performance of the agreement the applicant petitioners were given possession of the property. It was further contended that petitioner applicants have placed on record the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs to the effect that the payment for purchase was made by the company and further that since the plaintiffs respondent have since resigned as Director of the company they were not entitled to maintain the suit for specific performance. It was further contended that the applicant-petitioners being the intending vendees were entitled to impleaded as defendants in the suit to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs.;