JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Present civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against order dated 27.8.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Manali whereby application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by revisionist was dismissed. Brief facts of the case 2. Shri Jiwa Nand plaintiff filed civil suit old No. 183 of 2010 new No. 143 of 2013 title Jiwa Nand vs. Chande Ram and others before learned Civil Judge for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is in possession of suit land vide agreement of sale dated 7.11.2003 executed by co-defendants Nos. 1 to 8 in favour of plaintiff and co-defendant No. 9 for sale consideration of Rs. 678000/- (Rupees six lacs seventy eight thousand). Additional relief of declaration also sought to the effect that judgment and decree passed in civil suit No. 4 of 2004 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Manali on 25.2.2004 is illegal, void, inoperative and same was procured by defendants Nos. 1 to 10 on false facts by way of playing fraud upon Court and plaintiff is not bound by same. Additional relief of declaration also sought to the effect that mutation No. 3303 dated 31.3.2004 is also illegal, void, inoperative. Additional relief of specific performance of contract dated 7.11.2003 in favour of plaintiff and co-defendant No. 9 also sought. Additional consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction also sought against defendants. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of co-defendants Nos. 1 to 8 pleaded therein that suit in present form is not maintainable and plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit. It is pleaded that suit of plaintiff is based upon false facts and plaintiff filed the suit just to harass co-defendants Nos. 1 to 8. It is further pleaded that present suit for declaration and specific performance of contract with consequential relief of injunction is also not legally maintainable. It is also pleaded that plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct and present suit is barred by law of limitation. It is also pleaded that suit of the plaintiff is not valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. It is also pleaded that plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct and present suit is barred by law of limitation. It is also pleaded that suit of the plaintiff is not valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. Per contra separate written statement filed on behalf of co-defendant No. 9 Ved Ram pleaded therein that plaintiff has not come to Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from Court. It is pleaded that suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with special costs under Section 35-A of CPC and further pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action against defendants and plaintiff is estopped from filing present suit by his act and conduct. It is pleaded that suit is barred by law of limitation. It is pleaded that suit of plaintiff is not valued properly for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. 5. Separate written statement filed on behalf of legal representatives of co-defendant No.10 namely Ram Chand pleaded therein that suit of the plaintiff is liable to the dismissed with special costs under Section 35-A of CPC and also pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action against legal representatives of co-defendant No.10 Ram Chand and further pleaded that plaintiff did not come to Court with clean hands and plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct. It is pleaded that suit is not maintainable and also pleaded that suit is not valued properly for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. It is also pleaded that suit is barred by law of limitation. It is also pleaded that suit is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that Ram Chand vide agreement dated 20.7.2010 has sold the suit land to Chander Sen and Tikam Ram in sale consideration amount of Rs. fifty lacs. It is pleaded that Rs. eight lacs received on 20.7.2010 and later on Rs.104000/- (Rupees one lac four thousand) received. It is pleaded that remaining consideration amount was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed before Sub Registrar. It is pleaded that Chander Sen and Tikam Ram are necessary parties. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 6. Plaintiff filed replication and re-asserted the allegations made in plaint. 7. It is pleaded that remaining consideration amount was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed before Sub Registrar. It is pleaded that Chander Sen and Tikam Ram are necessary parties. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 6. Plaintiff filed replication and re-asserted the allegations made in plaint. 7. Shri Chander Sen revisionist filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as co-defendant in civil suit title Jiwa Nand vs. Chande Ram and others. It is pleaded that Chander Sen has filed civil suit title Chander Sen vs. Jiwa Nand & others before Hon'ble H.P. High Court for specific performance of contract dated 20.7.2010 with respect to suit land. It is pleaded that as per revenue record deceased Ram Chand was owner in possession of suit land and deceased Ram Chand contracted to sell the suit land to revisionist Chander Sen. It is pleaded that Chander Sen is necessary party in present suit to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in present suit. Prayer for acceptance of application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC sought in civil suit title Jiwa Nand vs. Chande Ram & others. 8. Per contra response filed on behalf of plaintiff pleaded therein that civil suit filed by revisionist in the Hon'ble H.P. High Court on the basis of false facts. It is pleaded that deceased Ram Chand had no right title or interest in suit land. It is pleaded that agreement alleged by revisionist is also fictitious and forged. It is also pleaded that no agreement was executed by deceased Ram Chand. It is pleaded that plaintiff is dominus litis in civil suit and revisionist cannot be allowed to implead as co-party in present suit. It is pleaded that revisionist has already agitated the matter in Hon'ble High Court and it is not open for the revisionist to agitate the present matter before learned Trial Court. Prayer for dismissal of application sought. 9. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on dated 27.8.2014 filed by revisionist. 10. Feeling aggrieved against order of learned Trial Court revisionist filed present revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 11. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists and Court also perused entire record carefuly. 12. 10. Feeling aggrieved against order of learned Trial Court revisionist filed present revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 11. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists and Court also perused entire record carefuly. 12. Following points arise for determination in civil revision petition:- Point No.1 Whether revision petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of civil revision petition? Point No.2 Relief. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that as per Order 1 Rules 3 and 5 of CPC revisionist should be impleaded as co-defendant in civil suit title Jiwa Nand vs. Chande Ram and others is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused relief clause of present civil suit title Jiwa Nand vs. Chande Ram and others. Jiwa Nand plaintiff did not seek any relief against revisionist in present civil suit. In present civil suit filed by Jiwa Nand sale agreement dated 20.7.2010 executed between revisionist and deceased Ram Chand is not under dispute. Revisionist Chander Sen has also already filed civil suit title Chander Sen vs. Jiwa Nand for specific performance of agreement dated 20.7.2010 executed between Chander Sen and deceased Ram Chand which is pending for disposal before Hon'ble H.P. High Court. 14. It is well settled law that plaintiff is dominus litis of his suit. It is well settled law that plaintiff has legal right to choose his own adversary against whom he seeks relief. It is well settled law that when there are no allegations against person who sought to be impleaded as coparty in civil suit or when there is no cause of action against the person who sought to be impleaded as co-defendant in the suit then application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC should not be allowed. It is well settled law that any decree or order passed by Court did not affect any person who is not party in judicial proceedings except in cases of decree in rem. See AIR 1993 Allahabad 8 Mohd. Farooq vs. District Judge Allahabad and others. 15. It is well settled law that any decree or order passed by Court did not affect any person who is not party in judicial proceedings except in cases of decree in rem. See AIR 1993 Allahabad 8 Mohd. Farooq vs. District Judge Allahabad and others. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that deceased Ram Chand has executed sale of agreement dated 20.7.2010 with revisionist qua suit land and on the basis of agreement of sale revisionist is necessary party in civil suit title Jiwa Nand vs. Chande Ram and others as per Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that as per Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 a contract for sale of immovable land itself does not create any interest or charge upon immovable land. It is well settled law that contract for sale creates rights in personam and did not create rights in estate. See AIR 1981 Delhi 291 Jiwan Dass Rawal vs. Narain Dass. See AIR 1987 Delhi 36 Imtiaz Ali vs. Nasim Ahmed. See AIR 1981 Calcutta 404 Amulya Gopal Majumdar vs. United Industrial Bank Limited. See AIR 1995 Allahabad 316 Indira Fruits and General Market vs. Bijendra Kumar Gupta. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that possession of suit property was given to revisionist by deceased Ram Chand father of Jiwa Nand plaintiff vide agreement for sale dated 20.7.2010 and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Civil suit title Chander Sen vs. Jiwa Nand and others is pending before Hon'ble High Court on the basis of agreement of sale dated 20.7.2010. In civil suit title Chander Sen vs. Jiwa Nand pending before Hon'ble H.P. High Court Shri Jiwa Nand plaintiff son of deceased Ram Chand is already impleaded as coparty. It is held that proper relief in accordance with law will be granted to revisionist Shri Chander Sen by Hon'ble H.P. High Court in civil suit title Shri Chander Sen vs. Jiwa Nand and others. 17. It is well settled law that while exercising revisional powers under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 High Court can interfere only when order of learned Trial Court is perverse. 17. It is well settled law that while exercising revisional powers under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 High Court can interfere only when order of learned Trial Court is perverse. See AIR 1991 SC 455 Masjid Kacha Tank Nahan vs. Tuffail Mohammed. See AIR 1969 SC 580 Indore Municipality vs. K.N. Palsikar. See AIR 1995 SC 1357 P.Udayani Devi vs. V.V.Rajeshwara Prasad Rao and another. See AIR 2002 SC 1004 Gurdial Singh vs. Raj Kumar Anjela. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra it is held that order of learned Trial Court is not perverse and it is also held that order of learned Trial Court is also not illegal. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2 (Relief) 18. In view of findings upon point No.1 revision petition is dismissed. Order passed by learned Trial Court dated 27.8.2014 passed upon application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is affirmed. Observations will not effect merits of case in any manner. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court On 30.11.2016. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Record of learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith along with certified copy of order. Revision petition is disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application (s) if any also disposed of.