Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The plaintiff is in revision petition against the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 21.11.2003 whereby Vaibhav Gandotra was ordered to be impieaded as a defendant. 2. The defendant has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 28.8.2006 allegedly cxecuted by defandent No. 1 Naresh Kumar. In the said suit, san applicatition was filed alleging therein by Vaidhav Gandotra that he is a co-parcener with Naresh Kumar defandent No. 1 and, therefore, his father has not right to enter into an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. This, it is alleged that he is a necessary party in the persent suit. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court. 3. The applicant as a co-parcener has no right to challenge the execution of agreement to sell. The right, if any would arise only on completion of sale on the ground permissible in law. He cannot seek any restraint order against the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family to exccute any sale in favour of a third person, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumarand Anr. v. Ram Parkash and Ors. Keeping in view the principles laid down in the said judgment, I am of the opinion that the appellant-Vaibhav Gandotra cannot seek impleadment in the suit on the ground that he is co-parcener. He has no right to challenge the action of Karta before the completion of sale. 4. Consequently the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the applicant-respodent, Vaibhav Gandotra is dismissed.