HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 22.05.2006 whereby respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were impleaded as defendants in the present suit for specific performance arising out of an agreement of sale dated 29.04.2005.
(2.) IT is the case of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 that a separate suit for specific performance has been filed by the said respondents on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 22.08.2005. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Code") on the ground that the suit has been filed in collusion with the defendants and that too on the basis of forged documents. It is alleged that no sale agreement between the parties as is being alleged and the one being put up has been fabricated by them by colluding with each other. It has further been pointed out that actually defendant Surjit Singh Nalwa agreed to sell the house in question to the applicants on the basis of an agreement dated 22.08.2005 at a price of Rs. 3 crores. A sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- was paid to him by bank draft and another sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- on the basis of receipt in cash. It is also pointed out that later on another sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid on cash. On receipt of Rs. 50 lacs, Shri Surjit Singh Nalwa applied for No Objection Certificate to the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, by attaching all the papers. The Estate Officer granted No Objection Certificate on 30.09.2005. It is further pointed out that the present suit had been filed on the basis of an agreement executed by one Rupinder Pal Singh, Special Attorney of the owner of the house. The Special Attorney is not on a stamp paper. In view of the averments, the applicants sought to be impleaded in the suit as the agreement allegedly put up by the plaintiff-petitioner is to affect their interest and rights in the suit filed by them. The learned trial Court has passed a detailed order impleading respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as defendants.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the judgments referred to by learned trial Court are not applicable to the facts of the present case and, in fact, the applicants are strangers to the agreement dated 29.4.2005 and, therefore, cannot be impleaded in the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in case reported as Krishan Lal and others v. Tek Chand and others, 1986 R.R.R. 30 : AIR 1987 Punjab and Haryana 197, and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra alias Gadasa Gum, 1995(2) R.R.R. 179 : (1995)3 SCC 147 and Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, 2005(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 691 : AIR 2005 SC 2813.;