The High Court considered a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a trial court order rejecting prayer for impleadment as parties in a specific performance suit. The Court declined to interfere, finding the original contract predates the petitioners' purchase.
Prayer for impleadment as parties dismissed; writ petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP(C) No.13480 of 2012
Misc. Case No. 12903 of 2016
18.11.2016
05. Heard.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction
in the cause title.
The Misc. Case is disposed of.
..
D.Dash, J.
06. W.P.(C) No. 13480 of 2012
18.11.2016
This application under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed question
ing the order dated 17.5.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Puri in C.S. No. 544 o
f 2009 whereby the petition under order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the
petitioners to be impleaded as parties to the suit has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 and opposite parties.
I have also carefully gone through the order in question.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 submits that in the meantime, petition
er no. 1 has died and therefore he would be taking necessary step for bringing his legal repre
sentatives. The petitioner no. 2 is none other than the wife of petitioner no. 1 and both had
jointly filed the petition to be impleaded as parties to contest the suit as defendants. Now e
ven after the order passed in Misc. Case No.12903 of 2016, the original defendant through whom
the petitioners claim to have derived right title and interest over the suit property has alr
eady been brought into the arena of this proceeding. So this proceeding can well be disposed o
f in the absence of the legal representatives of the deceased-petitioner no.1. Therefore, the
submission of learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 if accepted would simply cause delay an
d thereby the suit which has remained stayed for more than four years by now would continue fo
r much more time without going to serve any useful purpose.
4. Coming to the merit, it is seen that the suit is one for specific performance
of contract filed by the proposed vendee, the opposite partyno. 1 as plaitiff against the vend
or i.e. opp.party no. 2 arraigning him as the defendant. Admittedly, the petitioners are the l
is pendence purchasers and that has been taken note of by the trial court in further observin
g that by giving an entry to these petitioners to the suit who are not the parties to the cont
ract, the scope of the suit would get enlarged and that is not permissible. It is stated that
opposite partyno. 2 had made an agreement for sale in favour of opp.party no. 1. So the main i
ssue that would remain arise for decision in the suit is as to whether the agreement for sale
is specifically enforceable at the instance of the opp.party no. 1 against opp.party no. 2 and
these petitioners who seek their impleadment as parties would have practically no say in the
matter since the agreement for sale is said to have come into being prior to their so called p
urchase as well as the institution of the suit.
In view of aforesaid, I do not find any such justifiable reason to hold that t
he order of the trial court in rejecting the petition has caused grave miscarriage of justice.
5. Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of.
No order as to cost.
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order rejecting the petitioners' application to be impleaded as parties caused grave miscarriage of justice.
Petitioner no. 2
Legal representatives of Petitioner no. 1
Opposite party no. 1
Opposite party no. 2
D.Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court