JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. This order will disposed of Civil Revisions 150 of 1992 and 1032 of 1993 as these are directed against similar orders.
2. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit against Prem Singh and others for specific performance of agreements to sell dated 6.4.1983 and 5.10.1983 in respect of the property as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. Prem Singh has since died. During the pendency of the suit, applicant Gurmail Singh, respondent 1 herein moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party to the suit. It was averred that Prem Singh executed an agreement dated 12.4.1984 for sale of land measuring 100 sq. yards in favour of Rakha Singh father of the applicant. Land measuring 100 Sq. Yards agreed to be sold by Prem Singh forms part of the property in the present suit. Since, Prem Singh did not execute the sale deed, Rakha Singh filed a suit for specific performance. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 29.8.1990. It was thus submitted that in view of this decree, the applicant has become owner of that part of the land and, any decision rendered in the present suit would affect the right of the applicants and he is, therefore, a necessary and proper party to the suit. Similarly, applicant Harpinder Singh, respondent 1 in Civil Revision 1032 of 1993 also moved an application for being impleaded as a party to the suit. It was alleged that Piara Singh had executed an agreement dated 4.5.1984 for sale of land measuring 75 sq. yards in his favour, which is again a part of the property involved in the present suit, and he had to file a suit for specific performance. The suit was decreed. The sale deed was got executed through the court and thus the applicant has vested right in that part of the property being subsequent vendee. Thus, it was prayed that the applicant is a necessary and proper party because in the eventuality of the present suit being decreed, the decree so passed will be a nullity to the extent of the property purchased by the applicant.
3. Trial Court on a consideration of the matter, allowed the application by two separate orders dated 20.8.1992. The application were impleaded as defendants in the suit and they were permitted to file written statement and to cross-examine the witnesses already examined by the plaintiff. Hence, these revisions at the instances of the plaintiff.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned trial Court erred in al- lowing the applications. He submitted that the decrees, if any, obtained by the applicants during the pendency of the present suit are hit by the principles of lis pendence and thus the same do not confer any right on the applicants. Learned counsel also submitted that the plaintiff cannot be forced to fight against a person against whom she does not claim or seek any relief. Learned counsel for the applicant-respon- dent, on the other hand, by reference to a judgment of this Court in Rattan Singh Ahluwalia v. Khushal Singh and Ors., (1990-2)98 P.L.R. 246 vehemently submitted that the applicants are the subsequent vendees who have obtained decree in their favour and they have even got the sale deeds executed in respect of the portions of the suit property purchased by them and they are, therefore, necessary parties for proper adjudication of the suit relating to the interest of the plaintiff.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that these petitions deserves to be dismissed. The applicants sought their impleadment in the suit on the allegations that they have purchased a portion of the suit land and they have be- come owners and are in possession of the respective portions of the land after the suits filed by them were decreed and sale deeds in respect of that land were executed. In the trial Court the plaintiff had denied the execution of the subsequent agreements and the passing of the decrees in favour of the applicants, but during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants produced on record copies of the sale deeds executed in favour of the applicants from which it is prima facie evident that sale deeds were executed by virtue of decree passed against Prem Singh by the Court. Once prima facie it is so established, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the applicants are not only necessary parties to the suit, but their impleadment will set at rest the controversy between them relating to the property purchased by the. Under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, impleadment can be ordered by the Court when it finds that in the absence of the applicant seeking impleadment as party to the suit the controversy raised in the suit cannot be effectively and completely settled. I thus, see no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court. The trial Court was, however, not right in directing the plaintiff to file the amended plaint simply on the ground that the applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code seeking impleadment as defendants in the suit had been allowed. Impleading a party in the heading of the plaint is a ministerial act. No amendment for that purpose is necessary. Only the added defendants have a right to file written statement. The revision petition are consequently dismissed except with the modification that the direction regarding filing of amended plaint shall stand deleted. No costs. Since the proceedings had been stayed, the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 6.11.1998 for further proceedings.