JUDGMENT

Ms. Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff seeking setting aside of order dated 24.8.2017 (Annexure P-11) passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat whereby application filed by respondent no.2 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as defendant in the Petitioner's civil suit has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is son of the (now deceased) respondent no.1 Smt. Durga Devi, real brother of LRs of respondent no.1, and brother-in-law of respondent no.2 herein. Subject matter of dispute in the civil suit is H.No.139, Eight Marla, Ram Nagar, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). It is the petitioner's case that in the Family Settlement entered into between the parties, respondent no.2 had recorded her statement on 24.9.2012 to the effect that respondent no.1 Smt. Durga Devi will either alienate the suit property within three months or will fix the value of the house and any of the two parties can purchase the same after making payment of half amount.

3. It is submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the said Settlement, and statement dated 24.9.2012 of respondent No.2, petitioner had entered into an agreement dated 12.11.2012 with the deceased respondent no.1 whereby respondent No.1 had agreed to sell the suit property to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.60 lacs. It is stated that the petitioner had even paid earnest money of Rs.10 lacs out of total amount of Rs.60 lacs. It is submitted that the petitioner was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, however, as respondent no.1 failed to execute the sale deed in favour of petitioner on target date i.e. 28.11.2013, the petitioner was constrained to file the present suit seeking specific performance of agreement dated 12.11.2012. It is submitted that the petitioner filed instant civil suit (Annexure P-3) on 22.7.2013, and in the written statement dated 24.9.2013 filed by respondent no.1 to the above said suit, the respondent no.1 duly admitted execution of the agreement to sell dated 12.11.2012 as well as receipt of earnest money of Rs.10 lacs. However, suit was contested on the ground that the petitioner was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.

4. It is submitted that thereafter, issues were framed on 3.12.2013; where after respondent no.1 Smt. Durga Devi expired in 2015 and her LRs were duly brought on record. It is further submitted that however, her son/brother of the petitioner namely Kailash Vyas had claimed ownership over the suit property on the basis of registered Will dated 18.10.2007. Subsequently, vide order dated 9.5.2016 (Annexure P-7) both Kailash Vyas respondent no.1 (i) herein, and respondent no.1 (ii) herein-sister of the petitioner were impleaded as parties being legal heirs of deceased Smt. Durga Devi.

5. It is stated that thereafter, on 5.9.2016 (Annexure P-9) the present application was filed by respondent no.2 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment in aforesaid civil suit (Annexure P-3) on the ground that she was owner of the suit property by way of sale deed dated 22.5.2013 executed by Smt. Durga Devi in her favour. Petitioner filed detailed reply dated 13.3.2017 (Annexure P-10) to the said application dated 5.9.2016 (Annexure P-9).

6. It is submitted that in view of the fact that Smt. Durga Devi in her written statement had admitted execution of the agreement to sell dated 12.11.2012, and the fact that the alleged sale deed dated 22.5.2013 has not been mentioned by Smt. Durga Devi in her written statement, respondent no.2 has no locus as the civil suit is for po