Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial Court dt. 04.04.2007 by which petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as party was dismissed. As per the facts of the case, the respondent No. 2 filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondents No. 3 to 7. The alleged agreement is dt. 15.03.1997 which was reduced in writing on 27.03.1997. In the said suit, a detailed written statement was submitted by contesting defendant (alleged vendor) -respondent No. 3, who was defendant No. 1 before the trial Court. It appears that in the trial Court, three separate applications were filed -one by son of respondent No. 3 -defendant No. 1, second by his grand son and third by the widow of one of the sons of the defendant No. 1. The petitioner in his application pleaded that he is a legal heir of the defendant Maganlal and he has share in the property in dispute. He referred the facts about certain earlier litigation and orders passed in those litigation and also pleaded that the defendant No. 1 is of the age of 108 years and further pleaded that one of the grand son of the defendant No. 1 namely, Mahesh collusively want to grab the property and, therefore, if any decree will be passed in the suit filed by the respondent No. 2 -plaintiff, the petitioner's/applicant's interest will be adversely affected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred certain documents which are orders passed in various litigations.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in the case of Atul Sharma and Anr. v. and another judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in the case of Laxmi and Ors. v. Sat Narain and Anr. reported in, 2004 AIHC 2996, wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court took the view that in a suit for specific performance of contract of sale of property, the co -parceners may be impleaded as party.;