The court affirmed the principle that parties with substantial interest must be joined for effective adjudication in specific performance suits, emphasizing judicial discretion under Order 1 Rule 10.

ORDER :

B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order dated 24.11.2022 in I.A.No.138 of 2022 in O.S.No.2 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, allowing the application filed by the proposed defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC r/w Rule 28 of CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE to implead the petitioners No.1 and 2 as defendants No. 2 and 3 in the suit.

2. Heard Sri A.V.Pardhasaradhi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2/proposed defendants.

3. The Writ petitioner/respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the 3rd respondent/defendant herein for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 07.03.2019. The averments are to the effect that the plaintiff agreed to purchase Ac.17.81 cents out of Ac.23.75 cents in Sy.No.14-4A of Maruvada Village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam District, for an amount of Rs.1,06,00,000/- and both parties entered into an agreement of sale dated 07.03.2019. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff made some payments in advance. The balance sale consideration is to be paid within 11 months from the date of agreement and the defendant shall execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after payment of total sale consideration. However, as the defendant failed to execute the sale deed in spite of total payment, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

4. It is represented that written statement was filed by the defendant. Copy of the same has not been filed.

5. The 3rd parties who are the 1st and 2nd respondents herein filed I.A.No.138 of 2022 seeking to implead them as 2nd and 3rd defendants stating briefly is as follows:-

The defendant in the suit agreed to sell the suit schedule property to them under the agreement of sale deed dated 15.02.2019. They came to know that this suit was filed basing on the agreement of sale deed dated 07.03.2019 alleged to have been executed by the defendant on receipt of advance amount of Rs.68,20,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.1,06,00,000/-. The plaintiff acted as a mediator in the dispute arose between the defendant and his vendee by name Natarajan Chandra Prabhu under a sale agreement executed on 26.09.2018 by receiving advance amount of Rs.16,00,000/-(cash of Rs.10,00,000/- and amount of Rs.6,00,000/- through RTGS) out of sale consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000/-. Thus, the dispute was settled in the presence of the plaintiff. As per the settlement, on 15.02.2019, Natarajan Chandra Prabhu handed over his original agreement of sale and the original sale deed of the defendant to the petitioners on payment of an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- which he had paid as advance and additional sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to him. Thus, on 15.02.2019, the defendant executed the agreement of sale deed dated 15.02.2019 for Rs.1,71,90,000/- on receipt of advance amount of Rs.70,00,000/- which includes the amount paid to the previous vendee i.e., Natarajan Chandra Prabhu. The plaintiff, being a mediator, is well aware of all these facts, however filed the present suit without adding them or the previous agreement holder, Natarajan Chandra Prabhu, as necessary parties either in collusion with the defendant or by fabricating the suit agreement of sale. Some of the amounts mentioned in the plaint which were alleged to have been made through SBI cheque bearing No.846695 for Rs.12,00,000/- to the defendant were originally given by Natarajan Chandra Prabhu and even the plaint mentioned challan amount was paid in the na