A party to a contract for sale is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance, while a person claiming adversely is not; the court recognized the petitioner as a proper party for effective adjudication.

ORDER :

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the Order dated 06.09.2022 in I.A. No. 780 of 2019 in O.S. No. 13 of 2014 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narsapur, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner, under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking to implead him as 4th defendant in the aforesaid suit, was dismissed by the Court below.

2. The facts, in brief, are as follows:

It is the case of the petitioner that he filed Original Suit No. 3 of 2014 before the Court below against 3rd respondent herein for recovery of money basing on a promissory note dated 01.03.2013. In the said suit, the Court below granted attachment before judgment in respect of the subject property viz. land admeasuring Ac. 1.36 cents in Old R.S. No. 465/6 & New R.S. No. 465/6A situated in 26th Ward, Rustumbada village, Narsapur mandal, West Godavari district. Vide judgment dated 01.05.2018, the Court below decreed the suit. Thereafter, he filed E.P. No. 3 of 2019 for realization of the decretal amount by way of attachment and sale of the aforesaid property and the same is pending.

It is the further case of the petitioner that respondents 2 and 3 herein, who are wife and husband, entered into a collusive unregistered agreement of sale dated 09.01.2012 with 1st respondent and got filed O.S. No. 13 of 2014 through 1st respondent for specific performance of the said unregistered agreement of sale and the same is pending. In the said suit, the subject implead petition in I.A. No. 780 of 2019 came to be filed by the petitioner to permit him to implead as 4th defendant in the said suit, but erroneously the said petition was dismissed by the Court below.

3. Heard Sri Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav, appearing for Sri P.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for 1st respondent; Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri Maheshwara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for 4th respondent.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit in O.S. No. 13 of 2014 is a collusive suit between respondent No. 1 and other respondents, filed for specific performance of an unregistered agreement of sale, only in order to defeat rights of the petitioner, who is attachment holder in respect of the schedule property in the suit. He further submits that the said unregistered agreement of sale dated 09.01.2012 is a collusive one, brought into existence only to defeat the rights of the petitioner. It is his further submission that the petitioner has semblance of right over the schedule property and hence he is a proper and necessary party to the suit in view of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and in order to bring to the notice of the Court below regarding the attachment of the said property, as the parties are not seriously contesting the suit, and in the absence of the petitioner, no effective decree can be passed in the suit.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submit that the petitioner is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the suit which is filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale, and only in order to create multiplicity of litigation and delay the proceedings, the implead petition is filed, which is rightly dismissed by the Court below, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders & Investors Private Limited & others, (2013) 5 SCC 397 wherein it is held thus: (Para 24 & conclusive portion):

“In Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733, a three-Judge Bench of this Court said that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale an impleadment petition was filed for addition as party-defendant on the ground that the petitioners were claiming not under the vendor but adverse to the title of the vendor. In othe