JUDGMENT
J.S. Verma, C.J.
1. The petitioners are sons and wife of a pre-deceased son of defendant respondent No. 2. Mukhtyarsingh against whom a suit for specific performance has been filed by plaintiff respondent No. 2 Smt. Bhajni Devi. The suit is to enforce an agreement of sale of certain agricultural land recorded in the name of Mukhtyarsingh. The petitioners have not been impleaded as parties in this suit. The petitioners applied in the trial court for being impleaded as parties to the suit Under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC on the ground that the suit lands are not self-acquired property of defendant Mukhtyarsingh but the property of the joint Hindu family of which the petitioners are also members. A suit for partition of the family property including this land has already been filed by the petitioner against Mukhtyarsingh. The trial court how ever has rejected the application. Hence this revision.
2. The above facts clearly shows that the petitioners are atleast proper parties even if they are not necessary party, in view of their relationship with Mukhtyarsingh and the pending suit for partition of the family properties which include this land also. In such a situation rejection of the petitioner’s application was improper.
3. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of the trial court dated 9-4-1987 is set aside and the petitioner’s application for being impleaded as parties to the suit is allowed. The parties shall appear in the trial, court on 5-9-1988.