The test of eventual interest cannot be applied to determine whether a certain party is a necessary or proper party to be impleaded in a suit.

A.P.Chowdhri, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against order dated February 8, 1991, of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Moga, allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure made by respondents 2 to 6 and impreasing them as defendants.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts are that one But a :Singh was the owner of the land in suit besides some other land. On May 27, 1988, he entered into an agreement of sale of the land in suit with one Kulwant Singh for Rs. 1,61,000/- odd. Rs. 60,000/- were received as earnest money under the agreement. The sale deed was to be executed in favour of the promisee Kulwant Singh or his nominees. In pursuance of the agreement, Buta Singh received the balance amount of Rs. 1,01,000/- odd and executed sale deed in favour of the nominees of Kulwant Singh, namely, Gulzar Singh etc., petitioners herein, on November 2, 1988. Prior to the execution of the sale deed, Buta Singh suffered a consent decree with regard to the land in suit together with some other land in favour of his wife Smt. Chhinder Pal Kaur respondent No. 1, on October 6, 1988. On the basis of the decree, mutation was sanctioned in the revenue record on November 21, 1988. On the basis of the said entries, Chhinder Pal Kaur executed three sale deeds. The first two sale deeds dated February 15, 1989 and May 11, 1989, were in favour of Balwinder Singh etc., respondents 2 to 5, and the third sale deed dated May 2, 1990, was in favour of Tirloki Nath respondent No. 6. Gulzar Singh etc. vendees under the original sale dated November 2, 1988 instituted a suit against Chhinder Pal Kaur and her Husband Buta Singh for a declaration that the decree dated October 6, 1988, passed in favour of Chhinder Pal Kaur against Buta Singh was null and void and did not affect the plaintiffsrights and the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the land in dispute. Buta Singh was proceeded ex pane and Chhinder Pal Kaur appeared in the suit and made a statement on February 20, 1990, admitting the plaintiffs claim. Buta Singh later died It was at that stage that two applications were made under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, one by Balwinder Singh etc. respondents 2 to 5, and the second by Tirloki Nath, subsequent vendee from Chhinder Pal Kaur, to be impleaded as defendants in the suit instituted by the plaintiffs against Chhinder Pal Kaur and her husband Buta Singh. The applications were resisted by the plaintiffs. By the impugned order the said applications were allowed by the Subordinate Judge namely on the ground that the controversy in the suit was with regard to the ownership of the land in dispute and it was necessary to implead the applicants in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit Aggrieved by the order, the plaintiffs have preferred this revision.

3. The contention of Mr. San jay Majithia, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the applicants respondents 2 to 6, are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit instituted by plaintiffs. He further contended that the plaintiffs being domlnus litus cannot be com- pelled to implead persons against whom they sought no relief. It was pointed out that the sale dated February 15, 1989, related to some other land with which the plaintiffs were not concerned and that the order in question was patently illegal as impleading the applicants changed the scope and nature of the controversy raised by, the plaintiffs in the suit.

4. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, learned counsel for contesting respondents 2 to 6, on the other hand, submitted that the respondents were necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute. Learned counsel explaind that inter alia the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they were owners in possession of the land in dispute. The applicants claimed to have acquired title to the land on the basis of the sale deeds executed by Chhi