In a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to implead strangers to the contract in a specific performance suit, the High Court of Orissa dismissed the petition relying on Supreme Court precedents.
Petition dismissed; the order rejecting the application to implead Padma Sabar, Aswini Sabar, and Kutudu Sabar was upheld.
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.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
C.M.P. No.1493 of 2018
In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
----------Manika Sabar …. Petitioner Versus K. Prabhakar Rao …. Opposite Party For Petitioner … Mr. A. K. Nanda & Mr. G.N. Sahu, Advocates
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH
Date of hearing & judgment : 18.12.2018
Dr. A.K.Rath, J This petition challenges the order dated 01.12.2018,
passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Gunupur, in C.S. No.64 of 2017. By the said order, learned trial Court rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner to implead the stranger to contract in the suit for specific performance of contract.
2. Plaintiff-petitioner instituted the suit for specific
performance of contract and permanent injunction. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff filed an
application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the following persons, namely, Padma Sabar, Aswini Sabar and Kutudu Sabar. It is
2
stated that defendant has executed two sale deeds in favour of the aforesaid persons. Plaintiff is not bound by the same. The transferees are lis pendense purchasers. Learned trial Judge came to hold that the transferees shall stand in the footing of transferer. They are neither necessary nor property parties to the suit. Their presence is not necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. Held so, it rejected the application.
3. Heard Mr. A. K. Nanda along with Mr. G.N. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance of contract and other consequential reliefs. During pendency of the suit, the defendant alienated the suit property in the name of Padma Sabar, Aswini Sabar, and Kutudu Sabar. The transferees are proper parties to the suit.
5. The sole question that arises for consideration is as to whether in the suit for specific performance of contract for sale of the property, a stranger to the contract can be added as defendant. An identical matter came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Monmohan Sahu Vs. Ashis Kumar Mandal & others, 2016 (II) OLR 128. This Court held:
“6. This is not a virgin ground in so far as the question is concerned. The subject-matter of dispute is no more res integra. In Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra @ Gadasa Guru , (1995) 3 SCC 147, the apex Court held that since
3
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 paragraph 9 of the report, it is stated that:
“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.”
is
(emphasis laid)
6. The ratio in the case of Monmohan Sahu (supra) applies with full force to the facts of this case.
4
7. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in
the case of Manmohan Sahu (supra), the petition sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
DR. A.K.RATH, J
Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated the 18.12.2018/Uks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a stranger to the contract can be added as a defendant in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale.
Whether the transferees of the suit property are necessary or proper parties to be impleaded in the suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Monmohan Sahu Vs. Ashis Kumar Mandal & othersFollowed¶5
Monmohan Sahu Vs. Ashis Kumar Mandal & others, 2016 (II) OLR 128
Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath MishraRelied on¶6
Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra @ Gadasa Guru, (1995) 3 SCC 147 · Who else cites this
Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and othersRelied on¶6
Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, AIR 2005 SC 2813 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manika Sabar
K. Prabhakar Rao
Dr. A.K. Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
