JUDGMENT :

Ritu Tagore, J.

This revision is directed against the order dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned District Judge, Panipat vide which an application (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') for their impleadment as defendants/respondents in Civil Appeal No.367 of 2015 titled 'Subhash Chander and others Vs. Shanti Parkash Jain and others', pending adjudication, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents No.1 to 4 (plaintiffs before learned trial Court), instituted a suit No.141 of 2012 titled 'Shanti Parkash Jain and others Vs. Subhash Chander and others', for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell and permanent injunction with averments that respondent No.5 Subhash Chander (defendant No.1 before learned trial Court) on his behalf and on behalf of respondents No.6 to 8 (defendants No.2 to 4) and respondents No.9 to 17 (defendants No.5 to 14), entered into an agreement to sell dated 23.02.2005 regarding the suit land detailed in the plaint and also received earnest money of Rs.35,00,000/- (thirty five lakhs) under the agreement. The respondents No.9 and 15 did not contest the suit. The suit was contested by other respondents and learned trial Court decreed the suit in totality. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015 passed by learned trial Court, respondents No.5 to 17 filed the appeal No.367 of 2015 before the Learned 1st Appellate Court.

3. Learned counsel submits that during pendency of the appeal, present petitioners came to know about the litigation and filed an application (AnnexureP-1) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment in the suit, asserting them to be necessary parties being the legal heir of Kundan Lal, the erstwhile owner of suit land and their rights and interest are involved in the suit land, being co-owners. It is stated that upon filing of the reply (Annexure P-2) by respondents No.1 to 4 resisting the application, learned first Appellate Court without appreciating the facts and legal principles governing the issue, dismissed the application vide order dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure P-3).

4. Learned counsel submits that respondents No.1 to 4 were well aware that the petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased Kundan Lal, as agreement to sell dated 23.02.2005, included a recital stating that vendors would be responsible for getting the names of all legal heirs of deceased Kundan Lal entered and sanctioned in the revenue records at their own expense before the execution of the sale deed. The respondents No.1 to 4 filed the suit in respect of the land co-owned by the petitioners but purposely did not implead them as party, prejudicing their right in the suit land. Learned counsel states that suit of the respondents No.1 to 4 have been decreed, in respect of the whole of the suit property including the share of the petitioners. In these circumstances, they are necessary party. The dismissal of their application by the learned Ist Appellate Court is legally unsustainable in the eyes of law. A prayer is made to set aside the impugned order. To support his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Sumtbai and others Vs. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar w/o Parasmal Chordia (D) and others, 2007(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 524.

5. Contrarily, learned counsel for the petitioners defended the order, stating that petitioners are not necessary parties to the suit, where enforceability of the agreement to sell is an issue. Apparently, the petitioners are not party to the agreement to sell. The learned Ist Appellate Court, after appraising all the facts and legal position, rightly rejected the application. Learned counsel argues that the petitioners, being real sisters of the respondents No. 5 to 17, were aware of the litigation. The application for impleadment (Annexure P-1) was purposel