This writ application under Article 227 challenged the impleadment of respondents in a title suit for specific performance. The High Court held that the lower court's order was not patently illegal or perverse and dismissed the application.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9972 of 2013 In
C.R. 803 of 2009
====================================================== Rabindra Prasad Singh, son of Late Muneshwar Prasad Singh @ Mundrika Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Teus, Police StationBarbigha, District-Shekhpura
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Advocate & Ms. Nikki Singh For the Respondent/s : None
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER
4 12-09-2013 This is an application seeking quashing of the order dated 9.3.2009 passed by learned SubJudge-1, Shekhpura in Title Suit no. 13 of 1993, whereby he has allowed a petition dated 17.9.2002 filed by the interveners who have been impleaded in the present application as respondent nos. 2,3 and 4. The Court below, by the impugned order, in exercise of discretionary power under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the
2
Code of Civil Procedure has ordered them to be added as defendants in the suit filed for specific performance of contract instituted against the Respondent no.1.
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the said suit was filed for specific performance of contract for sale of the suit property admeasuring nearly 5 bigha. The agreement for sale was entered into on 19.10.1990 fort total consideration money of Rs.90,000/-, out of which the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. The petitioner’s case is that after having entered into the agreement for sale, the petitioner came in possession and, therefore, the petitioner, did not seek any relief for delivery of possession. The suit was filed in the year 1993 impleading Shil Dulari Devi as defendant no.1 who had executed the agreement for sale and one Ravindra Kumar Singh as defendant no.2 who was the witness to the said agreement. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 were impleaded as respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the present application but name of respondent no.1 came
3
to be subsequently expunged as she had died in the year 1996 itself, much before filing of this application. Respondent no.2 is said to be the witness to such agreement for sale and the interveners are thus on record as respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The case of the interveners, on the other hand, is that said Shio Dulari Devi had executed deed of gift to Rekha Devi, wife of defendant no.2/ respondent no.1 herein by a registered gift deed dated 2.11.1990. The said Rekha Devi, in the year 2000 executed a sale deed transferring the same property, which is the subject matter of Title Suit No. 13 of 1993, in favour of Rakesh Prasad Singh, Balmiki Prasad Singh and Smt. Kazoma Devi who are respondent nos. 2 to 4 in the present application. Based on this sale deed, respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed the application under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code seeking their impleadment in the suit on the basis that they had interest in the suit property, which
4
application has been allowed by the impugned order.
Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent nos. 2 to 4 were neither necessary nor proper parties and the Court below ought not to have allowed them to be brought on record as defendants in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that in any view of the matter, the vendor of the interveners having not been impleaded as party defendant in the suit, in no circumstance, these interveners could be impleaded as party on the ground of being transferees of the suit property from the said Rekha Devi. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 500 (Arun Kumar Yagnik Vs. Smt. Marydapti Thakur and others) so as to contend that in a suit for specific performance of contract, a stranger not connected in any way with the agreement for sale could not be allowed to be impleaded as party in the suit. He has also relied upon a Supreme Court judgment reported in ( 2010) 7 SCC 417( Mumbai International Airport
5
Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd and others) that respondent no.2 could in no circumstance, be treated to be proper or necessary party so as to claim impleadment in the said suit.
At the outset it has to be kept in mind that the legality or validity of the impugned order is being tested in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order in the present case has been passed in exercise of power under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure permitting the interveners to be impleaded as party. Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code reads as follows:-
“Rule 10(2). Court may strike out or add parties- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.”
6
From bare reading of the said provision, it will appear that the Court has the discretion to add any person as party at any stage of proceeding whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. This discretion, once positively exercised by a Court by allowing a person to be impleaded as party, in my opinion, can be interfered with only if it appears to be grossly unjust, patently illegal causing grave injustice or prejudice to the other party. The Court’s jurisdiction to pass such order impugned in the present application is not in dispute.
This is not in dispute that on the strength of deed of gift executed in favour of Rekha Devi by Shio Dulari Devi, interveners/respondents No. 2 to 4 have purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed. Their interest in the suit property, therefore, cannot be disputed. It is different matter altogether that their claim is dependent upon the title of their vendors, namely, Rekha Devi to execute the
7
sale deed which can be seen in accordance with law at appropriate stage. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported in( 2013) 5 SCC 397 (Thomson Press ( India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors (p) Ltd has dealt with the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code and has held that a transferee pendente lite may be impleaded as a party to the suit so that he may protect his interest.
I do not intend to entertain this application for the reasons that I do not find the impugned order to be patently illegal or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, it has been repeatedly held by this Court that where more than one view is possible and one view has been adopted by the Court, such move of the Court should not be disturbed by the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The judgment of this Court in case of Arun Kumar Yagnik ( Supra) as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be
8
applied in the present case in view of the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. ( supra).
In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. This application, is accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Arun Kumar/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court under Article 227 should interfere with the Sub Judge's order allowing impleadment of respondents under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC as necessary parties in a suit for specific perfor
Whether tranferees pendente lite of the vendee can be impleaded as parties to a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale.
Whether the presence of respondents was necessary to enable the court to effectually adjudicate upon specific performance of contract.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arun Kumar Yagnik Vs. Smt. Marydapti Thakur and othersReferred¶24
2000 (2) PLJR 500
Thomson Press ( India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors (p) LtdDistinguished¶30
( 2013) 5 SCC 397 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rabindra Prasad Singh
Rabindra Kumar Singh
Rakesh Prasad Singh
Balmiki Prasad Singh
Smt. Kazoma Devi
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
