Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH JALPAIGURI
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Prabin Kharel – Petitioner
Versus
Bijay Kumar Sah and Others – Respondents
CO No. 41 of 2023
Decided On : 15-06-2023
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order 1, Rule 10 (2) – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 19 – Implead of parties -Agreement to sell - Specific Performance of Contract and Perpetual Injunction – Whether as plaintiff or defendant, e struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added - Held, admittedly, plaintiff/opposite party has filed suit for specific performance against defendant no. 1/petitioner and petitioner ignoring agreement alleged to have been entered between parties had entered into a Deed of Conveyance with third party and thus this Court is of view that third party is necessary party for adjudication of suit filed by plaintiff/opposite party – Learned Judge while allowing application filed by plaintiff/opposite party has rightly held that subsequent purchaser has purchased portion of suit land being fully aware of contract between petitioner and opposite party no. 1 – Purchasers have not acquired title on basis of any decree or share of co-owner in a partition suit – Presence of subsequent purchasers is very much necessary for complete adjudication of suit – Court finds that Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division has not committed any illegality by allowing application filed by opposite party/plaintiff under order I, Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and thus impugned order does not required any interference – CO dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. This present revisional application filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Siliguri by an order no. 51, dated January 17, 2023 in Title Suit No. 130 of 2013, wherein the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed.
2. The opposite party/plaintiff has filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant no. 1 for a Specific Performance of Contract and Perpetual Injunction. The petitioner being the defendant is contesting the suit by filing written statement.
3. The opposite party/plaintiff had filed an application for grant of temporary injunction and the Learned Court has granted injunction and being aggrieved with the order of injunction, the petitioner/defendant had preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court being FMA No. 1260 of 2015 and by an order dated May 15, 2015, the Hon’ble Division Bench has modified the order of injunction as follows:
(2) The Trial Court shall invest the same in a nationalized bank in short-term deposits till the suit is finally disposed of.
(3) The Trial Court shall pass necessary orders with respect to the amount invested and the interest thereon when the suit is finally disposed of.
(4) If the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the injunction granted by the Trial Court will stand vacated automatically.
The appeal and the application are disposed of accordingly.”
4. The opposite party/plaintiff had also filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for addition of parties on the ground that the petitioner/defendant had transferred part of the suit property measuring an area of 72.6 decimals to third party namely Smt. Neha Aggarwal by a registered Deed of Conveyance No. I-634 in the year 2015 and thereafter the said Neha Aggarwal out of the said purchased land had further transferred and area of 12 kathas in favour of Sri Suresh Prasad Sah, Smt. Manju Devi Sah and Sri Ajay Kumar Sah by a registered Deed No. I-68 of 2017.
5. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Silliguri had allowed the said application on the ground that the purchasers are the necessary parties for proper adjudication of the suit.
6. Mr. Rajat Das, the learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the opposite party/plaintiff failed to comply with the order passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by depositing an amount of Rs.12,20,000/-in the trial Court and only for the purpose of reimposing the order of injunction passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the plaintiff/opposite party has filed an application for addition of parties.
7. Mr. Das submits that the plaintiff/opposite party failed to make out the case that the opposite party is ready and willing to perform his part. He further submits that the said fact is proved that the opposite party has not deposited the amount of Rs. 12,20,000/-being the balance consideration before the trial Court as per the order passed by Hon’ble Division Bench.
8. Mr. Das submitted that the proforma opposite parties are not the necessary party for adjudication of the suit but the Learned Judge failed to appreciate the fact and allowed the application filed by the opposite party.
9. Mr. Das has relied upon Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act and submits that as per the said provision there is no necessity for impleading the proforma opposite parties in the suit.
10. Mr. Amit Sinha, learned Advocate representing the opposite party no. 1 submitted that the opposite party has filed the suit for Specific Performance of Contract with respect of land measuring an area of 3.00 acre recorded in L.R. Khatian No. 300, in L.R. Plot No. 595 and 597 in Mouza-Khaprul J.L. No. 14, Pargana -Pathargahata, Police Station - Matigara, District -Darjeeling and dur
Court cannot allow adjudication of collateral matters so as to convert a suit for specific performance of contract for sale into a complicated suit for title between the plaintiff/appellant.
Only parties to a contract can be joined in a specific performance suit; others are neither necessary nor proper parties.
The prior purchasers of the property are necessary and proper parties to a suit for specific performance.
The decision to allow subsequent purchasers as parties in specific performance suits is justified when they demonstrate a semblance of title or interest to the property, supporting effective judicial....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for specific performance can be filed only against the persons who have entered into a sale agreement, and the necessity of parties in ....
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
