IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (128) JASBIR SURESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. **** VIRINDER AGGARWAL 1. Revisionist has filed this revision petition against order dated 26.10.2023 (Annxure P Samalkha has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by respondent No.2. The order has been assailed on the grounds that the agreement to sell in favour of the revisio possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction against respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 08.08.2018 and when the suit was application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as defendant No.2 on the grounds that respondent No.1 has entered into an agreement to sell dated 12.12.2014, so he is a necessary party. 2. The application was contested by the re agreement to sell of the revisionist necessary party but the application was allowed vide impugned order. 3. The impugned order is being assailed on the grounds that respondent is not a necessary party nor even a proper party for contesting the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR- Date of Decision: Versus SURESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER -.- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. **** VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral) Revisionist has filed this revision petition against order dated (Annxure P-4), vide which, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Samalkha has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by respondent No.2. The order has been assailed on the grounds that the agreement to sell in favour of the revisionist is of 30.12.2013 and he filed the suit for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction against respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 08.08.2018 and when the suit was ripe for arguments, respo application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as defendant No.2 on the grounds that respondent No.1 has entered into an agreement to sell dated 12.12.2014, so he is a necessary party. The application was contested by the re agreement to sell of the revisionist is prior in time, so the applicant is not a necessary party but the application was allowed vide impugned order. The impugned order is being assailed on the grounds that not a necessary party nor even a proper party for contesting the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -5359-2025 Date of Decision:-11.08.2025 … Appellant ... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Revisionist has filed this revision petition against order dated , vide which, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Samalkha has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by respondent No.2. The order has been assailed on the grounds that the agreement nist is of 30.12.2013 and he filed the suit for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction against respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated for arguments, respondent No.2 filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as defendant No.2 on the grounds that respondent No.1 has entered into an agreement to sell dated The application was contested by the revisionist on the grounds that prior in time, so the applicant is not a necessary party but the application was allowed vide impugned order. The impugned order is being assailed on the grounds that not a necessary party nor even a proper party for contesting the Revisionist has filed this revision petition against order dated , vide which, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Samalkha has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by respondent No.2. The order has been assailed on the grounds that the agreement nist is of 30.12.2013 and he filed the suit for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction against respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated ndent No.2 filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as defendant No.2 on the grounds that respondent No.1 has entered into an agreement to sell dated visionist on the grounds that prior in time, so the applicant is not a The impugned order is being assailed on the grounds that not a necessary party nor even a proper party for contesting the SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.12 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document suit of the revisionist. Moreover, revisionist is choose the party, 4. I have gone through the impugned order. 5. There is a clear assertion by the respondent/applicant that he has filed a suit against defendant No.1 of the present suit on the basis of agreement to sell in his favour regarding the part of the property in dispute and that suit was decreed vide judgment the defendant of the present suit has been proceeded against ex parte and he is not contesting the suit of the revisionist and the respondent/applicant has some right, title or interest in the part of the favour, so the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error and does not call for any interference in revision petition. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly 7. Since, the suit of the revisionist is of the year 2018, so the learned Civil Judge is requested to expeditiously dispose of the suit preferably within one year. . 11.08.2025 S. Pathania Whether reasoned / speaking? Whether reportable? suit of the revisionist. Moreover, revisionist is , against whom he wants to contest. I have gone through the impugned order. There is a clear assertion by the respondent/applicant that he has filed a suit against defendant No.1 of the present suit on the basis of agreement to sell in his favour regarding the part of the property in dispute and that suit was decreed vide judgment dated 19.12.2019 and now considering the fact that the defendant of the present suit has been proceeded against ex parte and he is not contesting the suit of the revisionist and the respondent/applicant has some right, title or interest in the part of the suit property on the basis of decree in his favour, so the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error and does not call for any interference in revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. s application(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly Since, the suit of the revisionist is of the year 2018, so the learned Civil Judge is requested to expeditiously dispose of the suit preferably within (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No suit of the revisionist. Moreover, revisionist is dominus litis and has a right to against whom he wants to contest. I have gone through the impugned order. There is a clear assertion by the respondent/applicant that he has filed a suit against defendant No.1 of the present suit on the basis of agreement to sell in his favour regarding the part of the property in dispute and that suit dated 19.12.2019 and now considering the fact that the defendant of the present suit has been proceeded against ex parte and he is not contesting the suit of the revisionist and the respondent/applicant has some suit property on the basis of decree in his favour, so the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error and does not call for any interference in revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Pending s application(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly Since, the suit of the revisionist is of the year 2018, so the learned Civil Judge is requested to expeditiously dispose of the suit preferably within (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No and has a right to There is a clear assertion by the respondent/applicant that he has filed a suit against defendant No.1 of the present suit on the basis of agreement to sell in his favour regarding the part of the property in dispute and that suit dated 19.12.2019 and now considering the fact that the defendant of the present suit has been proceeded against ex parte and he is not contesting the suit of the revisionist and the respondent/applicant has some suit property on the basis of decree in his favour, so the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error and ending Since, the suit of the revisionist is of the year 2018, so the learned Civil Judge is requested to expeditiously dispose of the suit preferably within SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.12 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document