1. ' Revision petition was against an interlocutory order of the trial Court dated 6-3-1993, by which it impleaded respondents Nos,2 and 3 as parties to the civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell instituted by the petitioneRs, ' Respondent No,1 owned 24 Kanals, 7 Marlas of land at Mauza Vern in Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. By an undated verbal agreement in the year 1992, he agreed for the sale of his above land to the petitioners for the sale price of Rs,3,50,000 and orally received Rs,1,00,000 as part consideration on 8-12-1992. Petitioners asserted that they were put in possession of the land in dispute under an oral agreement to sell in their favour. Since the sale did not take place in their favour, they instituted a civil suit for completion of it on 2-1-1993, in the Civil Court at Sheikhupura.
2. On 26-1-1993, respondents Nos,2 and 3 applied to the trial Court for becoming parties to the civil suit on the ground that respondent Nol had agreed with them on 28-11-1992 for the sale of his above land. Photo copy of agreement was annexed. Petitioners resisted intervention of respondents Nos,2 and 3 in the suit as being unnecessary parties. Upon examination of merits of the case, the trial Court found that the intervenors were necessary parties to the suit and allowed their joinder in it, subject to payment of Rs,100 as costs to the petitioneRs, In the first instance, petitioners preferred a revision from this order of the trial Court in the District Court. Later, it was discovered that value of the subject-matter in dispute in the suit exceeded pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court, and, hence, revision petition was returned to the petitioners for its presentation to the proper Court. Consequently, after receiving the return of papers, these were filed in this Court, and, thus the revision has come up for hearing today.
3. ' It was urged by Mr. Bashir A. Mujahid, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, that respondents Nos,2 and 3 were erroneously allowed to become parties to the suit for specific performance. Their only remedy was to file a separate suit for specific performance respecting agreement to sell in their favour. It could not be gainsaid that written agreement in favour of respondents Nos,2 and 3 was prior to the oral 'payment of Rs,1,00,000 as earnest money by the petitioners to respondent No,1. Learned counsel was unable to provide the precise date of oral agreement to sell in favour of the petitioneRs, Respondent No,1 denied about any agreement to sell his land in favour of the petitioners or receipt of earnest money from them. It was true that the ultimate remedy for respondents Nos,2 and 3 for completing the sale of the land in dispute in their favour was a suit for specific performance or a voluntary sale-deed by respondent No,1 in their favour. Till that event took place, transfer of ownership rights was not effective. However, in the present context, respondents Nos,2 and 3 had a tangible interest in the result of the suit for specific performance instituted by petitioners against respondent No,1. It could not be said that they were unnecessary parties.. They had clear interest in the litigation for protecting their legitimate rights in the property agreed to be sold to them. As for possession on the land in dispute, petitioners gave no proof. Mere oral assertion at.The hearing was not enough. To avoid collusion and easy ex parte success in the suit for specific performance presence of respondents Nos,2 and 3 before the trial Court was essential. In Kshetra Mohan Nath Sarma v. Mohamad Sadir Bepari and others AIR 1964 Tripura 16, it was held that "A person claiming under an anterior agreement of sale from the same party who had entered into the subsequent agreement of sale with the plaintiff will come within the mischief of section 27(c) of the Specific Relief Act and hence is necessary party. There cannot be specific performance of two agreements for sale against the same person and if a suit is brought to enforce one agreement of sale, it must be decided in that suit which of the holders of the agreements for sale has the right to get specific performance." Therefore, in allowing joinder of respondents Nos,2 and 3 in a suit for specific performance brought by petitioners against respondent No,1, the trial Court did not err and acted with perfect jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order was neither illegal nor irregular nor defective.
4. ' In result, there was no scope for interference. Consequently, civil revision is dismissed in limine.