JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the order dated 07.04.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar in Civil Suit No. 32/2011 by which an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the respondent Jiya Ram was allowed and he was impleaded as party. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for specific performance of agreement was filed by the petitioner plaintiff in the court of Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur in 2011 in which it is pleaded that father of respondent no.2 & 3 namely Shri Luna Ram was allotted land measuring 23.10 bighas in Chak No. 10 O in Murabba No. 49 and after his death, respondent no.2 & 3 became owner of the said land and they entered into an agreement with the petitioner for the sale of said land on 22.11.99 for a sum of Rs. 12,69,000/- and while receiving Rs. 12,69,000/- on the same day, they gave part possession of the land to the petitioner on 15.01.2000. Possession of remaining land was given on 13.04.2000. 3. As per petitioner, it was agreed between the parties that respondents would get the sanad of the land in question and thereafter execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner after receiving the remaing amount. But they refused to do so even though petitioner was always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. The petitioner upon denial of executing the sale deed the suit was filed by the petitioner before the trial court. 4. During pendency of the suit, respondent no.4 Jiya Ram filed an application to be impleaded as party stating therein that the land in question was already sold by the father of respondent no.2 & 3 Luna Ram and for execution of the said agreement, a suit was filed in the court of Civil Judge, Sriganganagar wherin suit filed by Chela Ram father of respondent No.4, decree was passed in his favour on 31.01.70 and petitioner plaintiff knowingly well the fact purchased the said land under an agreement dated 22.11.99 but in fact respondent no.2 & 3 were owner of the property in question because their father Luna Ram sold the land in question to the father of applicant Chela Ram. Therefore, they are necessary party in the suit because in judgment delivered by this Court will adversely affect their right. 5. A reply was filed by the petitioner defendant to the application before the trial court and an objection was raised that Jiya Ram cannot file application because limitation for execution of the judgment dated 31.01.70 has already expired, therefore, they cannot claim any right over the land in question. The trial court allowed the application filed by Jiya Ram vide impugned order which is impugned in this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a gross error has been committed by the trial court while allowing application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC because there was no right created in favour of Jiya Ram in pursuance of a decree passed in favour of his father on 31.01.70 because limitation prescribed for execution of the said judgment and decree already expired. But trial court ignored the said fact and solely on the ground that decree was passed in favour of applicant after impleading him as party which is totally erroneous, therefore, the order impugned is illegal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that no relief is claimed by the petitioner plaintiff against the respondent no.4, therefore, trial court was under an obligation to consider this aspect of the matter but ignoring the said fact, allowed the application filed for impleadment as party, therefore, order impugned may be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that there is complete fallacy in the argument of the petitioner because execution proceeding is going on in the trial court, therefore, it cannot be said that no right created in favour of the respondent no.4 applicant. It is also argued that petitioner plaintiff is not disputing the fact that land in question was earlier sold to Shri Chela Ram, father of applicant but only ground is raised that decree was passed in the year 1970 and limitation prescribed in the limitation Act is only 12 years but this ground cannot debar the respondent no.4 to become a party in the proceeding because execution proceeding is going on, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned and considered the arguments advanced by the parties. 10. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned and considered the arguments advanced by the parties. 10. In the opinion of this Court, when petitioner is not disputing the fact that agreement in question was executed in his favour for the same land for which a decree has already been passed in the year 1970 for that execution proceeding is going on. 11. In view of above, even if the fact of execution of proceeding is not pleaded in the trial court this court cannot lose sight of the fact that there is a decree in favour of respondent no.4 for the land in question. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court is justified. The respondent no.4 who is son of Late Chela Ram in whose favour, the decree was passed for the same land, therefore, he is entitled to be impleaded as party in the suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance of contract dated 22.11.99 because it will certainly affect the right of respondent no.4. 12. In view of above, I see no reason to interfere in the order impugned, therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******