Shankar Prasad Agarwal vs Deson Optical Company Pvt. Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1578

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY, J.
Shankar Prasad Agarwal – Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Deson Optical Company Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
CO 886 Of 2023
Decided On : 24-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Adv., Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury, Adv., Mr. Sourav Guchhait, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ranjit Roy, Adv., Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty, Adv., Mr. S. Paul, Adv.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Specific Relief Act - Section 19 - Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to enforce a contract - Added defendants not parties to the contract cannot be held as necessary parties in a suit for specific performance - Court ruled that enforcing a contract requires the parties in the contract, and those claiming under them, and the learned Trial Court erred in adding the siblings of the plaintiff as parties, as their interests did not relate to the enforcement of the specific contract. (Paras 19, 24)

(B) The mere being siblings does not create a necessary or proper party situation if they do not have a legal interest in the contract in question. (Paras 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against original defendant for non-fulfillment of an agreement concerning property transfer, leading to the addition of siblings as defendants, causing dispute over necessity.

Findings of Court:
The added defendants do not have semblance of title concerning the specific contract and hence cannot be joined; necessary parties are defined by the agreement’s context.

Issues: Whether the added defendants have a necessary interest in the specific performance contract? Whether the Trial Court erred in their addition?

Ratio Decidendi: Only parties to the agreement and those claiming under them can be compellable in a suit for specific performance; sidestepping this principle may alter the nature of the proceedings unnecessarily.

Result: The order adding defendants set aside.

Table of Content
1. identification of application for judicial review. (Para 1 , 2)
2. plaintiff's rights to compel execution of agreement. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 13)
3. defendants' claims as necessary parties questioned. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. suit to remain focused; added defendants' remedies. (Para 22 , 23)
5. court's directive to set aside previous order. (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)

1. This application under Article 227 of Constitution of India impeaches the order dated 15.7.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 36 of 2017.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties would be referred to in the manner they have been arrayed in the suit.

3. Plaintiff files a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant no. 1 stating inter alia that he is duty bound to execute a deed of conveyance which is required to be registered and for mandatory injunction directing the opposite party no. 1 to execute and register the deed. The suit was initially registered as Title Suit No. 87 of 2014 and subsequently renumbered as T.S. 36 of 2017. The opposite party no. 1 duly entered into appearance on 03.9.2014 and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was disposed off. Thereafter, the defendant submitted his written statement. The parties have been directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property, by the learned Trial Court while disposing of an application for temporary injunction, filed by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant no.1 stopped appearing before the learned Trial Court and on November 30, 2021 Om Prakash Agarwal filed an application for addition of party in the said suit followed by the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the added defendant no. 3, 4 and 5 on 04.5.2022. Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties was pleased to allow both the applications and thus the intending defendants got impleaded in the suit as defendants nos. 2 to 5.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order the plaintiff has preferred this application under consideration.

5. Heard Mr. Rahul Karmakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Ranjit Roy, learned counsel representing the opposite party nos. 3,4 and 5 as well as Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty assisted by Mr. Paul, learned counsel, representing the added defendant / opposite party no. 2.

6. Assailing the order impugned Mr. Karmakar submits that the plaintiff filed a suit to make the original defendant discharge his obligation pursuant to the agreement entered into by and between the plaintiff and the original defendant whereby the defendant agreed to transfer a shop room having an area 400 sq. ft. in the building he constructed at a consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- and for which the defendant made the plaintiff to surrender his tenancy. The consideration money was fixed at Rs.3 lacs but the defendant was dragging his feet to discharge his obligation.

7. According to Mr. Karmakar though the suit is for declaration, injunction, including mandatory injunction in essence, it is a suit to enforce the agreement entered into by and between the plaintiff and the original defendant. The plaintiff being the dominus litis had the liberty to decide the defendant. The added defendants being his siblings do not have anything to do with the said agreement. They are neither necessary parties, nor proper parties for the adjudication of the dispute. Learned Trial Court, however, failed to appreciate an agreement or a contract can be enforced only against either party of the contract or any person claiming under him by a title arising subsequent to contract, except a transferee for value who has paid the money in good faith or any person claiming under a title known to the plaintiff who might have been displaced by the defendant. The added defendants do not fit in either of these categories. Mr. Karmakar makes me go thr