The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the impleadment of a respondent in a specific performance suit, and accepted a prayer to club two related suits with the District Judge of Sonepat.
Revision petition dismissed; prayer to club two suits and transfer one to the same court accepted.
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.
CR No.2530 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL REVISION NO.2530 OF 2011 DATE OF DECISION: FABRUARY 15, 2012
Satpal & another
.... Petitioners
Versus
Sita Ram & another
.... Respondents
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Surinder Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1.
L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Plaintiffs Satpal and Umed Singh have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 04.01.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat thereby allowing application Annexue P-1 moved by respondent No.1 Sita Ram under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) for impleading him as party to the suit instituted by petitioners herein against Mahabir proforma respondent No.2 herein as sole defendant.
Petitioners have filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.06.2005 along with permanent injunction alleging that defendant Mahabir agreed to sell the suit land to the petitioners/plaintiffs by way of aforesaid agreement.
Claim of respondent No.1 in his application Annexure P-1 is that
CR No.2530 of 2011
-2-
defendant-Mahabir has agreed to sell the suit land to him (Sita Ram) vide agreement dated 25.07.2005 and Sita Ram had already filed suit against Mahabir for specific performance of the said agreement, which was also pending. On this ground, Sita Ram respondent No.1 claimed to be proper and necessary party to the suit.
Plaintiffs resisted the application by alleging that Sita Ram is not necessary party to the suit.
Trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-3 allowed the application of Sita Ram and ordered his impleadment as defendant. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this revision petition.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Admittedly petitioners herein have also moved application for being impleaded as party to the suit instituted by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2. According to counsel for the petitioners, the said application is still pending. Thus it is the case of petitioners themselves that they are necessary party to similar suit instituted by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 is not proper or necessary party to the instant suit instituted by the petitioners. Even otherwise, petitioners and respondent No.1 are claiming under different agreements allegedly executed by Mahabir proforma respondent No.2. Consequently, rights of all the parties can be properly and effectively adjudicated upon if all the parties are before the Court.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that respondent No.1 has been rightly ordered to be impleaded as party to the suit. Impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of
CR No.2530 of 2011
-3-
Superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioners prayed that both the suits may be clubbed and decided together by one and the same Court. The prayer is not opposed by counsel for respondent No.1. The prayer is even otherwise justified so as to avoid conflicting decisions. Accordingly the prayer is accepted and both the suits shall be clubbed and decided together by one and the same Court. District Judge, Sonepat shall transfer one of the two suits to the other Court.
(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE
15.02.2012 'raj'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in impleading the respondent as a necessary party to the suit for specific performance.
Whether two related suits instituted by different parties against the same defendant should be clubbed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Satpal
Umed Singh
Sita Ram
Mahabir
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
