Dismissed

Satnam and Anr. v. Mohinder Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2010CR/7377/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition, the High Court dismissed the application to implead the petitioners as necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The court held that since the defendants were not parties to the alleged agreement between the petitioners and Mohinder Singh, no privity of contract existed, distinguishing cited precedents.

What did the court decide?

Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC dismissed; petitioners free to avail other remedies.

Satnam and Anr. Vs Mohinder Singh and Ors. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.R NO.7377 OF 2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R NO.7377 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 26.04.2010

¶5

Satnam and another

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

Mohinder Singh and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI

¶11

Present : Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. L. S. Bhangu, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶13

Mr. Abhinav Oberoi, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 17.

¶14

K.C. PURI, J. (ORAL)

¶15

This is a revision petition against the order dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-3) vide which the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC preferred by Satnam Singh and others for impleading them as party in suit for specific performance, was dismissed.

¶16

Mohinder Singh, Ujjal Singh and P.D.Gupta filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.05.2003 in respect of land measuring 17 kanals 19 marlas situated at Rajpura. The present petitioners moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for arraying them as party on the basis of

¶17

C.R NO.7377 OF 2009

¶18

-2-

¶19

agreement dated 05.03.2008 alleged to be executed by Mohinder Singh-plaintiff in their favour.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Mohinder Singh executed agreement dated 05.03.2008, after receiving Rs.4,58,333/- each from the applicants as earnest money in the presence of marginal witnesses and as such, the petitioners are necessary party. The learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed their application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. To fortify his argument, he has relied upon authorities “ Aflatoon vs. Shyam Lal and others” 2006 (4) ICC 572 a nd “Gram Panchayat, Garhi vs. Dharambir” 1998 (1) PLR 809.

¶21

The prayer has been strongly opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

¶23

From the perusal of the alleged agreement in favour of the petitioners, it is revealed that Mohinder Singh alleged to have agreed to sell the property in case the suit for specific performance of agreement dated 17.05.2003 is decreed. It is not disputed during the course of trial that the defendants are not party to the agreement dated 05.03.2008. So, there is no privity of contract between the defendants and the present petitioners. So far as the authorities Aflatoon's case (supra) and Gram

¶24

Panchayat's case (supra) are concerned, in both theses cases the applicant was held to be a necessary party for adjudication of

¶25

C.R NO.7377 OF 2009

¶26

-3-

¶27

the dispute and in those circumstances, he was ordered to be arrayed as party. On the facts of present case, the applicants are not necessa ry party.So, both the authorities are not helpful to the petitioners.

¶28

So, the present petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedy available to them, as per law.

¶29

APRIL 26, 2010 shalini

¶30

(K. C. PURI) JUDGE

Satnam and Anr. v. Mohinder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnam and Anr. v. Mohinder Singh and Ors.

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

Daya Chand Vs Municipal Corporation of Faridabad and Ors.

Manjit Singh Vs Bhoop Singh & Ors.

Rohtash Dass Vs Umrao

N I Co. Ltd. Vs Arit Mohan and Ors.

N I C. Ltd. Vs Babli and Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sajjan Kumar and Ors.