JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. 

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide which the applications filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC and under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC have been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.05.2018 and 18.12.2018. It is further submitted that in the said case, the defendant-respondent had filed a written statement on 21.09.2020 (Annexure P-2), in which, it was stated by the defendant that she was the owner and in possession of the suit property and that she had not disclosed the fact that she had further sold the property. It is stated that immediately on learning about the said fact that the defendant had further sold the property, the petitioner moved the applications on 25.02.2022 for impleadment of the said purchaser as well as for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC in order to make necessary averments and prayers with respect to the said sale deed. It is submitted that however the said applications have been dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-8) on surmises and conjectures. It is argued that the person in whose favour the defendant had sold the property is a necessary party as the said sale was prior to the institution of the suit. It is further argued that even the amendment incorporating the said fact is necessary for the proper and final adjudication of the case. It is submitted that since the defendant in the written statement had not disclosed the said fact, thus, the petitioner/plaintiff was unaware about the same and thus, despite due diligence, the petitioner could not have mentioned the said fact at an earlier stage.

3. Notice of motion was issued in the present case and vide order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the proceedings before the trial Court were stayed. On 18.11.2025, Mr.Naveen Kashyap, Advocate, had put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and he had filed his power of attorney, which was taken on record and he had sought time to argue the matter. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 24.03.2026. On 24.03.2026, this Court was pleased to pass the following order: -

“Present:- Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

***

In spite of the matter having been called three times, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the interim order is in effect prejudicing the rights of the petitioner only as it is his suit which has been stayed.

In the interest of justice, adjourned to 25.03.2026 for arguments.

To be taken up in the urgent list.

It is made clear that in case the respondent does not come to argue the case tomorrow, then, this Court would decide the case on the basis of the available record.

March 24, 2026”

4. Today also, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent to contest the present revision petition.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper-book and finds that the present revision petition is meritorious and the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 is against law and the applications filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC and under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, deserve to be allowed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

6. From a perusal of the plaint (Annexure P-1), it is apparent that the present petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.05.2018 and 18.12.2018 and for possession. The delay in the proceedings thus would primarily prejudice the petitioner/