JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) - This is defendant’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 17.8.2010 whereby application for amendment of the plaint filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed and respondent No. 3 has been impleaded as defendant No. 3 in the suit. 2. As per the averments made in this petition, respondent No. 1 filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.6.2006 directing the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit property and also sought relief of permanent injunction. Subsequent to filing of the suit, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint and under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading respondent No. 3 as defendant alleging that respondent No. 3 had purchased the suit property after filing of the suit and therefore, it was necessary to amend the plaint by adding the relief of seeking declaration that the aforesaid alienation made by respondents No. 1 and 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 was illegal, null and void and has no effect on the rights of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and further restraining respondent No. 3 from alienating/creating further charge on the suit property. 3. The aforesaid application was contested by the petitioner stating that respondent No. 3 was not necessary to be added as a party as she had not signed the agreement in question and if the plaintiff wants to seek some relief on the basis of new facts which have come into existence after filing of the suit, he should file fresh case and vide proposed amendment, the nature of the suit will be changed and the same is liable to be rejected. 4. However, the trial Court allowed the aforesaid application filed by respondent No. 1 holding that the suit property was sold to respondent No. 3 during the pendency of the suit and the aforesaid transfer could be challenged by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 by amending the suit including seeking the relief of declaration to the effect that the transfer of the property in dispute is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. It was also held that in view of the aforesaid facts, respondent No. 3 was a necessary party to be impleaded. 5. It was also held that in view of the aforesaid facts, respondent No. 3 was a necessary party to be impleaded. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order. 6. There is no dispute that in a suit for specific performance of the agreement in question, the plaintiff-respondent is seeking possession of the suit property by way of execution of the sale deed in his favour on the basis of the aforesaid agreement and the petitioner has sold the aforesaid property to respondent No. 3 during the pendency of the suit. Keeping in view the subsequent events that the defendants have sold the property to respondent No. 3 during the pendency of the suit, it had become necessary for the plaintiff to challenge the aforesaid sale submitting that the same is not binding upon him. In view of these facts, respondent No. 3 was also necessary party to be impleaded. 7. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned order and no interference is called for. 8. No merits. 9. Dismissed. ---------------