JUDGMENT L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral).: Kanwaljit Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 08.10.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal thereby dismissing application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) for being impleaded as party to the suit instituted by respondent no.1 herein against respondents no.2 to 5 herein. 2. Respondent no.1 filed suit against respondents no.2 to 5 seeking declaration that he is owner of the suit house. Respondent no.1 also claimed relief of possession and permanent injunction. 3. The case of the petitioner in application (Annexure P-3) moved by him under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is that plaintiff-respondent no.1 is no more owner of the house in dispute because he sold the same to respondent no.2 (defendant no.1) and one Nakli for Rs.2,25,000/- vide agreement to sell dated 22.03.1996 and said respondent no.2 and Nakli agreed to sell the same to petitioner and others vide agreement dated 24.09.1997 for Rs.2,25,000/- and therefore, the petitioner is necessary party to the suit. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 5. The petitioner has alleged that plaintiff is no more owner of the house in dispute. However, this plea cannot be accepted because the petitioner himself claims his alleged rights in the suit house to have been derived from the plaintiff through respondent no.2 and Nakli. Moreover, even according to the agreement (Annexure P-2) allegedly executed in favour of the petitioner and others by respondent no.2 and Nakli, there was only agreement to sell (Annexure P-1) executed by plaintiff-respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no.2 and Nakli. Consequently, the said agreement could not divest the plaintiff of his title over the suit property. Moreover, even according to the agreement (Annexure P-1), respondent no.2 and Nakli had paid only Rs.50,000/- as earnest money, out of total sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000/-. The petitioner himself and his companions also paid only Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent no.2 and Nakli. Balance sale consideration payable to plaintiff-respondent no.1 being Rs.1,75,000/- is yet to be paid, even according to the petitioner’s own version. 6. The petitioner claimed that he has become owner of the house in question. However, in the absence of registered deed, the petitioner cannot become owner of the suit house. Balance sale consideration payable to plaintiff-respondent no.1 being Rs.1,75,000/- is yet to be paid, even according to the petitioner’s own version. 6. The petitioner claimed that he has become owner of the house in question. However, in the absence of registered deed, the petitioner cannot become owner of the suit house. Even his predecessors-in-interest i.e. respondent no.2 and Nakli themselves were not owners of the suit house as allegedly there was only agreement to sell in their favour and also there is only agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner and others. 7. In addition to the aforesaid, the alleged agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner and others is dated 24.09.1997. Admittedly, the petitioner and his companions have not filed any suit for specific performance of the said agreement, which is now hopelessly barred by limitation. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the suit. Judgments in the cases of Kuljit Singh vs. Inderpal Singh reported as 1992 (1) Cur. L. J. 172 and Aflatoon vs. Shyam Lal reported as 2006 (4) ICC 572, cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, are completely distinguishable on facts and have no applicability to the facts of the case in hand. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. --------------