Hi Guest, You are using a Trial - Expire on , Click Here to Subscribe to Upgrade your Plan!

2007 59 AIC 246 ; 2007 0 AIR(SC) 3166 ; 2007 0 AIR(SCW) 6125 ; 2007 69 AllLR 497 ; 2007 6 ALT(SC) 20 ; 2007 3 ApexCJ(SC) 615 ; 2007 4 AWC 4101 ; 2008 1 CHN(SC) 65 ; 2007 4 CivCC 593 ; 2008 2 CivLJ 186 ; 2007 0 DNJ 1019 ; 2007 3 GLH 644 ; 2008 1 JCR(SC) 1 ; 2008 1 JLJR(SC) 78 ; 2007 11 JT 479 ; 2007 4 KLT(SN) 33 ; 2007 6 MLJ 733 ; 2007 4 MPHT 333 ; 2007 2 OLR 811 ; 2008 1 PLJR(SC) 78 ; 2007 4 RCR(Civ) 524 ; 2007 2 RCR(Rent) 471 ; 2008 104 RD 80 ; 2007 2 RentLR 549 ; 2007 11 Scale 596 ; 2007 10 SCC 82 ; 2007 10 SCR 543 ; 2007 7 Supreme 201 ; 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 1276 ; 2008 1 WLC 1

2007(7) Supreme 201
Supreme Court of india
A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Sumtibai & others — Petitioners
versus
Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D)& Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 117 of 2001
Decided on : 04-10-2007

important point
Merely allowing the appellants to be impleaded but not allowing them to file an additional written statement will amount to violation of natural justice.

(a)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC r/w Order 1 Rule 10 – Sale deed showing execution in the names of the appellants and their father Even otherwise, appellants are legal representatives of their father – Looking from any angle, their application for filing additional written statement could not be rejected – Impugned judgment not sustainable.(Para 9)

       (2005) 6 SCC 733 – Distinguished.

       (b)Precedent – A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides – What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. (Para 10)

       AIR 1968 SC 647; (1987) 1SCC 213; (2003) 2 SCC 111; AIR 2004 SC 4778 – Relied upon.

       (c)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC r/w Order 1 Rule 10 – It cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit – If C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment – To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings – Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced.(Para 14)

       (d)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC r/w Order 1 Rule 10 – Also, merely because some applications have been rejected earlier it does not mean that the appellants should not be allowed to file an additional written statement – No useful purpose would be served by merely allowing the appellants to be impleaded but not allowing them to file an additional written statement – This will amount to violation of natural justice.(Para 15)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellants are the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand. A suit was filed by the respondent against Kapoor Chand for specific performance of a contract for sale. It was alleged that Kapoor Chand had entered into an agreement to sell the property in dispute to the plaintiff-respondent, M/s. Paras Finance Co. In that agreement Kapoor Chand stated that the property in dispute was his self acquired property. During the pendency of the suit Kapoor Chand died and his wife, sons etc. applied to be brought on record as legal representatives. After they were impleaded they filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) read with Order 1 Rule 10 ref=act:10444>CPC praying inter alia, that they should be permitted to file additional written statement and also be allowed to take such pleas which are available to them. The trial court rejected this application against which a revision was filed by the appellant which was also dismissed by the High Court.

       Findings of the Court:

       Appellants should be allowed to file additional written statement.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

Act Referred :
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.1 R.10, O.22 R.4(2)

Cases Referred:

.