Dismissed¶24

Manoj Kumar Singh v. Surendra Nath Tiwari

Patna HC6 Feb 2026C.Misc./725/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: specific performance of contract; oral agreement to sell; absence of date/time/place of agreement in plaint; impleadment of subsequent purchaser/transferee; amendment of plaint Order VI Rule 17 CPC; impleadment Order I Rule 10 CPC; inherent power Section 151 CPC; amendment changing nature of suit; relief declaring sale deed null and void; purchaser in shoes of vendor; Manjit Singh v. Darshana Devi (SC, CA 13066/2024) distinguished; rejection of amendment petition affirmed by dismissal of C.Misc. No. 725 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

On bare perusal of the plaint of Title Suit No. 349 of 2023, the pleadings nowhere mention any date, time or place of the alleged agreement to sell the suit property with Defendant No. 1. ¶19

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs Surendra Nath Tiwari — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the civil miscellaneous application seeking setting aside of the order dated 21.05.2024 of the Sub-Judge-III, Bikramganj in Title Suit No. 349 of 2023, whereby the petition dated 12.10.2023 under Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was rejected, deserves to be allowed. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

On bare perusal of the plaint of Title Suit No. 349 of 2023, the pleadings nowhere mention any date, time or place of the alleged agreement to sell the suit property with Defendant No. 1.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

It is an admitted fact that Defendant No. 1 (Surendra Nath Tiwari) is the rightful title-holder of the suit property.

¶19

Key takeaways

The principle of the Supreme Court decision in Manjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Darshana Devi & Ors., relied upon by the petitioner, will not apply in this case because there is no basis of the petitioner's claim over the suit property for want of any valid document, much less the date and time of any agreement.ratio¶23
The purchaser of the suit land will step into the shoes of his vendor, who is already contesting the suit as defendant; hence impleadment of the transferee is not necessary for adjudication.ratio¶23
There is no merit in the civil miscellaneous petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Miscellaneous (Patna High Court, S.B. Pd. Singh, J.) — Application to set aside trial court's order dated 21.05.2024 rejecting petition dated 12.10.2023 under Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC, seeking impleadment of Asha Devi (subsequent purchaser of the suit property) as defendant and addition of a prayer to declare her sale deed null and void in a specific-performance suit (Title Suit No. 349 of 2023) founded on an alleged oral agreement — DISMISSED. Held: the plaint nowhere pleaded the date, time or place of the alleged agreement to sell with Defendant No. 1; Defendant No. 1 was the admitted rightful title-holder; the purchaser steps into the shoes of the vendor who is already contesting the suit as defendant; the principle of Manjit Singh & Anr. v. Darshana Devi & Ors. (Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 13066 of 2024) relied on by the petitioner was held inapplicable and the cited precedent stood distinguished.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.725 of 2024

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Manoj Kumar Singh Son of Shiv Pujan Singh Resident of Village-Rajpur, P.S.-Rajpur, Distt,-Rohtas.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Surendra Nath Tiwari Son of Late Rambachan Tiwari Resident of VillageRajpur, P.S.-Rajpur, Dist.-Rohtas, Presently residing at 993, new Bus Stand Old Traffic Settlement Khadagpur, Distt.-Medanipur (West Bengal)

¶7

Asha Devi Wife of Krishna Prasad Resident of Village-Rajpur, P.S.-Rajpur, Dist.-Rohtas.

¶8

... ... Respondent/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey No.5 For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

5 06-02-2026

¶12

The instant civil miscellaneous application has

¶13

been filed for setting aside the otder dated 21.05.2024, passed by learned Sub-Judge-III, Bikramganj in Title Suit No. 349 of 2023 whereby he has rejected the petition dated 12.10.2023 filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶15

he has filed Title Suit No. 349 of 2023 for specific performance of a contract against the defendant, Surendra Nath Tiwari, on the basis of an oral agreement with respect to the suit property. He further submits that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant has transferred the suit

¶16

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.725 of 2024(5) dt.06-02-2026 2/3

¶17

property to one Asha Devi, and he seeks to implead Asha Devi as a defendant in the suit for proper and complete adjudication of the matter.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 submits that the proposed amendment is fit to be dismissed because the nature of the proposed amendment amounts to changing the nature of the suit because in the proposed amendment a relief has been sought for that the sale deed executed in her favour be declared as null and void.

¶19

From bare perusal of the plaint of Title Suit No. 349 of 2023, it appears that the plaintiff has sought relief for specific performance of a contract against Defendant No. 1. However, in the entire pleadings any date, time, or place regarding the alleged agreement to sell the suit property with Defendant No. 1is not mentioned. It is an admitted fact that Defendant No. 1 is the rightful title-holder of the suit property, and as per submission of learned counsel for the respondent, in the absence of any stay order passed by a competent Court, he has validly transferred the suit property in favour of another party upon receiving valuable

¶20

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.725 of 2024(5) dt.06-02-2026 3/3

¶21

consideration. Consequently, he cannot be restrained from doing so.

¶22

To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Manjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Darshana Devi & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 13066 of 2024 decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court.

¶23

The principle of aforesaid cited judgment will not apply in this case because there is no basis of the claim of petitioner over the suit property for want of any valid document muchless, the date and time of any agreement. Moreover purchaser of the suit land will put his leg in the shoes of his vendor, who is already contesting the suit as defendant.

¶24

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the aforesaid civil miscellaneous petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed.

¶25

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)

¶26

Ankit Kumar/-

¶27

Manoj Kumar Singh v. Surendra Nath Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Singh v. Surendra Nath Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

In the Goods of Late Most Bindeshwsari, Vs X

Raja Ram Mehta Vs Manju Devi

Bikrama Singh Vs Brij Narayan Singh and Anr.

Pikesh Kumar Vs Ranjit Pal

Most. Madhuri Kunwar and Ors. Vs Rajendra Singh

Rajdeep Mandal Vs Smt. Sharda Devi and Ors.