The special status of a plaintiff and the necessity of impleading certain persons as defendants when they may be adversely affected by the outcome of the suit, in the interest of justice.

ORDER :

Heard the parties.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff who instituted special suit No. 57 of 2012 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad at Panvel for the specific performance of an agreement for sale of certain land bearing plot No. 44. As per agreement dated 9.3.2011, respondent no.1 is the vendor. From the facts available on record, it appears that respondent no.1 sold the property allegedly in violation of the agreement, in favour of respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 on 3.10.2011. The plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit on 2nd February, 2012 and obtained an order of a status quo on 29th February, 2012. Thereafter as per the plaintiff's case respondent Nos. 6 to 8 created interest of third parties in the same property through registered agreements in the month of April, 2012. The appellant as plaintiff made an application to the trial court to implead the proposed purchasers having registered agreement of sale in their favour as defendant. This application was rejected by the trial court and that order was challenged before the High Court but without success as appears from the Order under appeal dated 19.08.2014 passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2359 of 2014.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when there was an order of status quo by the trial court, the respondent nos. 6 to 8 clearly acted contrary to such order by entering into subsequent agreement for sale of the suit property in favour of ten persons and in such circumstances prayer to implead such ten persons should have been allowed when the prayer was made by the appellant-plaintiff who is dominus litus. He placed reliance upon a judgment by three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 733.

4. In reply learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 to 8 submitted that as per allegations made by the appellant these respondents have only entered into registered agreement of sale and therefore no rights have yet been created in favour of the alleged subsequent purchasers in the ten flats on the suit property. Learned counsel has relied heavily upon a judgment by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik v. Pushpendra Kumari & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 708 to submit that the persons sought to be impleaded are not at all necessary parties.

5. First we shall consider the judgment in Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik's case (supra). In that case, the appellant-plaintiff who had filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale and had also sought permanent injunction to restrain the proposed vendors from interfering with the possession, had resisted the claim of a subsequent purchaser seeking impleadment under 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the CPC'). In spite of such opposition, the prayer for impleadment was allowed and the High Court did not interfere. Then the plaintiff moved this Court and the appeal by leave was allowed by setting aside the orders and dismissing the application for impleadment. In such factual scenario, the court clearly accepted the privilege of the plaintiff as to what shall be the scope of the suit and who should be allowed to intervene as defendant. With respect to claim of the subsequent agreement of sale to respondent no. 10, the Court observed in paragraph 6 of Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik's case (supra)as under:

"Respondent 10 is alleged to have entered into an agreement with Respondent 1 on 15.11.1984 for sale of the property, which is the subject matter of the suit filed by the petitioner. In respect of such an agreement, Respondent 10, could have filed a suit for specific performance but as stated by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, no such suit has been filed. In our opinion Respondent 10 was not at all a necessary party for determination of the genuineness or otherwise of the agreement of sale which is said to have been entered into between the petition