IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a common question of law and fact to unite causes of action against multiple defendants under Order II Rule 3 & 4 and Section 151 CPC.

JUDGMENT

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.

I.A. 3411/2021

1. The present application has been filed under Order 2 rule 3 & 4 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to unite the cause of action against both the defendant and relief against both of them by filing a comprehensive suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 who is the wife of defendant No.2 on the basis of General Power of Attorney executed an agreement to sale in respect of D-31, Ansal Villas, Satbari, Chhatarpur, New Delhi-110074 and the constructive possession of the property was given. However, simultaneously, the plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 i.e. the owner and husband of defendant No.1. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants neither performed the specific performance of the contract nor have they handed over the possession in terms of the lease deed executed between the parties.

3. The present application has been moved on the ground that the sale transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the lease deed executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 were executed simultaneously. It has been submitted that the relief sought in the present case arises out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions, against the defendants, jointly, severally or in the alternative. Hence, it has been submitted that permission may be granted to unite the cause of action against both defendants by filing a comprehensive suit.

4. The defendants have not filed the reply. However, written submissions have been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has invited the attention of the Court to Order I Rule 3 & 4 as well as Order II Rule 3 & 4 read with Section 151 CPC. It has been submitted that the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.2 are the husband and wife. It has further been submitted that the erstwhile owner of the suit property executed an agreement to sell in favour of defendant no. 2 and general power-of-attorney in favour of defendant no.1 while executing sale documents in their favour. Being GPA holder of the erstwhile owner, defendant no.1, executed transfer documents with respect to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on 24.01.2019 and to acknowledge that sale, defendant no.2 stood as a witness on those documents. It has further been submitted that the symbolic possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff and at the same time defendant no.2 executed a lease deed dated 24.01.2019 to retain the possession of the suit property, till the time they find suitable accommodation for them.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the Execution of the sale documents as well as the lease deed is not denied by the defendants. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that however, the defendants, in their written statement, are claiming that these documents were executed only to secure the loan transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is also seeking consequential relief of possession of the suit property from defendant no. I, who being the GPA holder of the erstwhile owner, executed the sale documents in favour of the plaintiff.

7. It has further been submitted that as per the lease agreement, the plaintiff handed over the possession of the suit property to defendant no.2 under the lease agreement dated 24.01.2019, therefore defendant no.2 also becomes the necessary party for proper adjudication of the present case. It is submitted that the plaintiff has already performed its part of the contract by making the entire payment, and it is the defendants who have to perform their contract by executing the sale deed and they cannot be allowed to avoid their obligations by taking these baseless pleas. The cause of action for filing the suit for specific performance accrued in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the agreement to sell executed by defendant no. 1 and witnessed by defendant no.2 as