Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
Kiran Kant Robinson and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5522-5523 of 2019
Decided On : 17-07-2019
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Plaintiff in suit for specific performance of agreement/contract to sell - Cannot be forced to add a stranger as a party against whom he does not want to fight. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
Respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein – the original plaintiffs filed a suit against respondent no.1 herein – original defendant no.1 for specific performance of the agreement to sell/contract dated 3.5.2005 executed by respondent no.1 – original defendant no.1. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit and despite the injunction against respondent no.1 herein – original defendant no.1 – original owner not to alienate or transfer the suit property, he executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant herein. The appellant herein who purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit filed an application in the pending suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleadment as a defendant in the suit on the ground that having purchased the suit property he is a necessary and proper party to the suit as he has a direct interest in the suit property. The trial Court allowed the said application and directed the original plaintiffs to join the appellant as a defendant in the suit.
Respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein filed writ petition before the High Court which was allowed and the order passed by the trial court allowing the impleadment application preferred by the appellant herein was quashed and set aside by holding that as regards the relief claimed against the original defendants and as no relief has been claimed against the appellant herein, the appellant cannot be said to be a necessary or formal party. Thereafter the appellant preferred a review application which was dismissed.
Finding of the court:
The plaintiffs cannot be forced to add party against whom he does not want to fight.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Core Holding: In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiffs cannot be forced to add a party against whom they do not want to fight. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000639100005][1000639100006]
Facts Overview: Original plaintiffs filed suit against original defendant no.1 (vendor) for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 3.5.2005. Vendor executed sale deed in favor of appellant (subsequent purchaser) on 10.07.2008 during pendency of suit, despite injunction. Appellant applied under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment as defendant claiming direct interest. Trial court allowed; High Court quashed, holding appellant not necessary or proper party as no relief claimed against him. [1000639100001][1000639100007] (!) (!)
Plaintiff's Position as Dominus Litis: Plaintiff controls the suit and cannot be compelled to implead a third party/stranger to the contract, especially against their wish, unless compelled by rule of law. Adding such party risks enlarging suit scope to title/possession, which is impermissible. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Tests for Necessary Party under Order I Rule 10 CPC: (1) Right to some relief against such party regarding controversies in suit; (2) No effective decree possible without them. In specific performance suit, necessary party requires right to same relief against them re: subject matter; proper party needed for full adjudication. (!) (!)
Third Party/Subsequent Purchaser Not Impleadable: Stranger claiming independent title/possession (not based on contract) cannot be added; would convert specific performance suit into title suit. Cannot add merely to determine possession or avoid multiplicity of suits. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Distinction on Impleadment Applications: Different if plaintiff seeks to implead subsequent purchaser vs. third party seeking impleadment opposed by plaintiff. [1000639100005]
High Court and Supreme Court Outcome: High Court correctly set aside trial court's impleadment order; Supreme Court agrees, dismisses appeal, no interference warranted. (!) (!) [1000639100004][1000639100006]
Procedural History: Appellant filed review after High Court order, dismissed. Appeals by special leave dismissed, no costs. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 3.7.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 856/2012 and order dated 5.8.2013 passed in Review Petition No. 169/2013 in Writ Petition No. 856/2012 by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original plaintiffs and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court allowing the application preferred by the appellant herein for impleading him as a necessary party to the suit filed by respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein – the original plaintiffs, the original applicant – appellant has preferred the present appeals.
2. The facts of the case leading to these appeals in nutshell are as follows:
Respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein – the original plaintiffs filed a suit against respondent no.1 herein – original defendant no.1 for specific performance of the agreement to sell/contract dated 3.5.2005 executed by respondent no.1 – original defendant no.1 in the Court of learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur. That during the pendency of the aforesaid suit and despite the injunction against respondent no.1 herein – original defendant no.1 – original owner not to alienate or transfer the suit property, respondent no.1 herein – original defendant no.1 executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant herein vide sale deed dated 10.07.2008. The appellant herein – purchaser who purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit filed an application in the pending suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleadment as a defendant in the suit. It was the case on behalf of the appellant herein that he has purchased the suit property and is a necessary and proper party to the suit as he has a direct interest in the suit property. That by an order dated 5.11.2012, the learned trial Court allowed the said application and directed the original plaintiffs to join the appellant as a defendant in the suit.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 5.11.2012 allowing the application and permitting the appellant herein to be joined as a party defendant in the suit filed by the original plaintiffs – respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein, respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein filed writ petition No. 856/2012 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh. By the impugned judgment and order dated 3.7.2013, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court allowing the impleadment application preferred by the appellant herein by holding that as regards the relief claimed against the original defendants and as no relief has been claimed against the appellant herein, the appellant cannot be said to be a necessary or formal party. That thereafter the appellant preferred a review application which came to be dismissed. Hence, the present appeals by way of special leave petitions.
3. Shri Prashanto Chandra Sen, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri M. Shoeb Alam, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original plaintiffs.
3.1 Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that once the learned trial Court allowed the impleadment application submitted by the appellant herein under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC holding that the appellant is a necessary and proper party, the High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ought not to have interfered with the same.
3.2 It is vehemently submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that as such the appellant has purchased the suit property from the same vendor and, in fact, the appellant was prior agreement to sell holder and to protect the interest of the appellant the appellant is a necessary and proper party. It is submitted that therefore the learned trial Court rightly allowed the impl
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
