***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) –

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner purchased suit property i.e. plot bearing No.MC No.1571/27 min., area measuring 103.10 sq. yard by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 31.08.2020 from Kanchan Ahuja, Ranjana Ahuja, Veena Ahuja and Anita Ahuja, who also delivered possession of the property purchased by him to him i.e. petitioner. However, the neighbours started raising dispute as to whether the property was part of khasra number or part of Lal Lakir. In order to clarify the position, plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the sub-Registrar/ Tehsildar, Rupnagar to disclose the particulars of the property. The said defendant was proceeded ex parte. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner – plaintiff moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead his vendors i.e. Kanchan Ahuja, etc., as party. However, that application has been declined by the Court vide order dated 10.04.2023 on the ground that said vendors had already sold the suit property and so they did not have any concern with the same.

2. After hearing learned counsel, this Court finds merit in the contention. It is the vendors of the plaintiff, who will be able to disclose the exact particulars of the property as sold by them to the plaintiff. Therefore, impugned order dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure P.3) is hereby set aside as the vendors of the plaintiff appears to be at least proper party to the suit. The trial Court is directed to permit the plaintiff to implead his vendors i.e. Kanchan Ahuja etc., as a party to the suit and then proceed further in accordance with law.

3. Disposed of.

Order accordingly.

********