Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anil Tiwari, assisted by Sri Asim Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that Sri Komal Singh son of late Sri Kundan Singh, Ramesh Chandra, Chandrapal sons of Sri Komal Singh residents of village-Dhetora, Agra and Sri Kunwar Pal son of late Sri Kundan Singh, Deepchnadra, Shanker Singh, Hakim Singh, sons of Sri Kunwar Pal residents of village Dhetora, Agra were owners of agricultural plot No(s).192,195,197,198/1 and 199 M of village Mohammadpur, Tehsil and District Agra.

3. The aforesaid two sets of persons have separately sold an area of 2.9857 hectares vide registered sale-deed dated 23.9.2011 and an area of 1.8440 hectares vide registered sale-deed dated 1.5.2012 respectively to one Sri Subodh Kumar. Out of this total area of 4.8297 hectares, Sri Subodh Kumar sold an area of 2.3040 hectares to the revisionist vide registered sale-deed dated 4.2.2013 and entered into a registered agreement dated 30.4.2012 with the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for an area of two bighas. In the sale-deed dated 4.2.2013, the plaintiff respondent No. 1 was one of the witness. It was mentioned in the aforesaid deed dated 4.2.2013 that sale-deed of the remaining area of the land out of total area of 4.8297 hectares shall be executed in favour of the revisionists as per his convenience within one year.

4. Subsequently, a suit for specific performance being O.S. No. 1467/2014 Hakim Singh Yadav v. Subodh Kumar was filed by the plaintiff respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2 for specific performance of the registered agreement to sale dated 30.4.2012.

5. In this suit the revisionist filed an application for impleadment as necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Agra who rejected the application by the impugned order dated 31.10.2015 on the ground that the revisionist is not a necessary party inasmuch as at the time of contract/agreement between the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and the defendant-respondent No. 2 he was not in existence.

6. Aggrieved with this order the revisionist has filed the present revision.

Submission of the Revisionist

7. Sri Shashi Nandan submits that since in the sale-deed dated 4.2.2013 plaintiff-respondent was a witness in which it was clearly stated that the remaining portion of the property out of total area of 4.8297 hectares shall be sold by executing a sale-deed in favour of the revisionist as per his convenience within one year and as such at least some kind of right over the property in favour of the plaintiff, has accrued to the revisionist and as such he is a necessary party in the suit of specific performance in which relief has been sought by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that sale-deed of the disputed property be executed by the defendant-respondent No. 2 in his favour. He submits that under the facts and circumstances of the case revisionist is a necessary party in the suit and as such he should have been impleaded as defendant. The impugned order rejecting the impleadment application is fully arbitrary and illegal. In support of his submission he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baluram v. Chellathangam and others, AIR 2015 SC 1264 Para 14.

Submission of the Plaintiff Respondent No. 1

8. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 submits that the sale-deed on the basis of which the revisionist is claiming his some kind of right over the disputed property is void in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act for reason that no consideration is mentioned for the promise made. He submits that the promise incorporated in the sale-deed dated 4.2.2013 does not fall within any of the exceptions of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act and, therefor