C. R. No. 2209 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 2209 of 2009
Date of Decision : April 23, 2009
Sanjay and others .... Petitioners
Vs.
Jasbir Singh and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
* * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
This is revision petition assailing order dated 21.03.2009
(Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar,
whereby application moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – the CPC), for
becoming party to the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent no.1 against
defendant-respondents no.2 and 3, has been dismissed. Petitioners no.1
and 2 are sons of defendant no.1 (respondent no.2 herein), whereas
petitioner no.3 is son of defendant no.2 (respondent no.3 herein). Plaintiff-
respondent no.1 has filed suit against respondents no.2 and 3 for possession
of the suit land by specific performance of agreement to sell. The claim of
the petitioners is that they are coparceners in the suit land with the
defendants and therefore, have share therein by birth, and therefore, they are
necessary party to the suit.
C. R. No. 2209 of 2009 2
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
case file.
By now, it is well settled law that coparceners cannot challenge
the proposed sale of coparcenary property by karta before completion of
sale, but can challenge the same after the sale is effected or completed. In
view thereof, the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even a
stranger can be impleaded as party to the suit for specific performance.
Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumtibai and others vs. Paras
Finance Co. Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) and others
reported as 2007 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 524. However, in that case, the
applicant seeking to be impleaded as party had semblance of title in the suit
property on the basis of registered sale deed. The said case did not relate to
impleadment of a person as party on the ground of being coparcener as is
the position in the instant case. The judgment is completely distinguishable
on facts. On the other hand, this judgment by a Bench of two Hon’ble
Judges of Supreme Court distinguished a judgment of three-Judge Bench of
the Apex Court in the case of Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and others
reported as (2005) 6 S.C.C. 733. In the instant case, the petitioners cannot
be ordered to be impleaded as party to the suit on the ground of the
petitioners being coparceners and having interest in the suit property. They
may have a right to challenge the same after the sale is completed, but they
have no right to be impleaded as party to the suit.
In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the impugned
order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.
April 23, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL )
monika JUDGE
C. R. No. 2209 of 2009 3