Dismissed

Smt. Kamolina Raj v. Shri Amit Jeevan

Chhattisgarh HC20 Nov 2024CR/36/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a revision petition challenging the rejection of an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC. The court held that a co-owner who was not a signatory to the agreement was not a necessary party in a specific performance suit.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition questioning the rejection of the impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC was dismissed.

Smt. Kamolina Raj Vs Shri Amit Jeevan — Specific Performance | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 3

¶2

VIVEK RAWAT

¶3

Digitally signed by VIVEK RAWAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CR No. 36 of 2021

¶7

1 - Smt. Kamolina Raj Wd/o Mr. R.J. Dharmraj Aged 71 Years R/o Lodhi Para Chouck, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Sanjay Dharmraj S/o Mr. R.J. Dharmraj Aged About 52 Years R/o Lodhi Para Chouck, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Doji Sanjana Dharmraj D/o Mr. R.J. Dharmraj Aged About 47 Years R/o Lodhi Para Chouck, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Shri Amit Jeevan S/o Late Shri Lakhiram Jeevan Aged About 62 Years R/o Rajiev Nagar, Raipur, the: & District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents

¶11

For Petitioners : Shri Palash Jha, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Devershi Thakur, Adv. For Respondent No.2. : Shri R.N. Pusty, G.A.

¶12

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board

¶13

21.11.2024

¶14

This revision petition has been preferred by the defendants questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the 5^th Additional District Judge, Raipur in

¶15

2 / 3

¶16

Civil Suit No.32-A/2021, whereby, the application filed by defendants under Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected.

¶17

From perusal of the record, it appears that a suit for specific performance of contract was instituted, based upon an agreement to sale dated 10.12.2018, purported to have been executed by the defendants in favour of the Respondent/plaintiff, namely, Amit Jeewan and, during the pendency of the suit, an application enumerated under Order 1 Rule 9 of C.P.C. has been made by the defendants alleging inter alia , that since one of the co-owner, namely, Ajay Dharmraj, whose name is reflected from the revenue paper, was not made a party in the suit, therefore, in absence of the impleadment of the necessary party, the suit as framed, deserves to be dismissed.

¶18

It, however, appears from perusal of the alleged agreement to sale that said Ajay Dharmraj was not the signatory, therefore, it cannot be said that he is a necessary party to the suit nor can it be said that no effective judgment/order could be passed in his absence, in the light of the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of “ Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and others , reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733 , wherein at paragraph 14, it has been held as under:-

¶19

“14. Keeping the principles as stated above in mind, let us now, on the admitted facts of this case, first consider whether Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 are necessary parties or not. In our opinion, the Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 are not necessary parties as an effective decree could be passed in their absence as they had not

¶20

3 / 3

¶21

purchased the contracted property from the vendor after the contract was entered into. They were also not necessary parties as they would not be affected by the contract entered into between the appellant and Respondents 2 and 3. In the case of Anil Kumar Singh v . Shivnath Mishra, it has been held that since the applicant who sought for his addition is not a party to the agreement for sale, it cannot be said that in his absence, the dispute as to specific performance cannot be decided. In this case at para 9, the Supreme Court while deciding whether a person is a necessary party or not in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale made the following observation: (SCC p.150)

¶22

"Since the respondent is not a party to the agreement of sale, it cannot be said that without his presence the dispute as to specific performance cannot be determined. Therefore, he is not a necessary party."

¶23

[emphasis supplied]”

¶24

In view of above, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 9 of C.P.C., so as to call for any interference in this revision.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Sanjay S.Agrawal) JUDGE

¶28

vivek

Smt. Kamolina Raj v. Shri Amit Jeevan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamolina Raj v. Shri Amit Jeevan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakuntala Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Ila Diwan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Yogesh Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

A.c.c.ltd. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Teeka Bai Khunte Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Adarsh Gramya Bharti Sikshan Samiti Tamnar Vs State of Chhattisgarh