Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts case order of Court below ONGC a party in the impugned suit just and proper.

R.D. Kothari, J.—In a suit for specific performance, if the third party claims to have title or interest in suit property and applies for impleading it / him as party, then whether the said third party can be impleaded as party to the suit or not, is the question arises in this petition. Seemingly simple question is fiercely litigated issue, as it would appear from more than couple of recent judgments by the Supreme Court referred and relied on at the time of hearing by the learned advocates for the parties.

2. First about facts. Relevant facts for the purpose of present discussion are thus; the petitioner is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 514 of 2007. The petitioner has instituted the said suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara. The said suit came to be instituted in pursuance to the agreement to sell entered into between defendant No. 1 and the petitioner on 9.9.2004. During the pendency of the said suit, present Respondent No. 3 – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (for short ‘ONGC’) filed an application (Exh.22) to implead it as a party in the said suit. The said application came to be allowed by the trial court by passing short order. It is this order of the learned trial court which is under challenge in this petition.

3. ONGC had earlier instituted a suit against Defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 275 of 1994 and in the said suit, the learned trial court had granted injunction directing the defendants not to alienate, sale or dispose of the property in any manner. Entering into transaction by the defendants qua that property i.e. suit property had led the ONGC to file an application to join it as a party. Pendency of the earlier suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 275 of 1994 and particularly granting of injunction in favour of ONGC had led the learned trial court to hold that ONGC had interest in the suit property and holding so, the court had allowed the application, (Exh. 22), seeking impleadment as party in Civil Suit No. 504 of 2007.

4. Heard learned advocate Shri Parthiv B. Shah for the petitioner, learned advocate Shri R.D. Dave for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Shri K.B. Naik for M/s. Trivedi & Gupta for the Respondent No. 3 - ONGC.

5. Learned advocate Shri Shah for the petitioner, after referring to the facts of the case and drawing attention to the impugned order, has submitted that the learned Judge has virtually given no reason in his order. Learned advocate has drawn attention to relevant case laws – Kasturi’s case [(2005) 6 SCC 733, Anil Kumar Singh’s case – [(1995) 3 SCC 147] and Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.’s case – AIR 2010 SC 3109. Relying on these case laws, it was submitted that the order of the learned trial court may be quashed and set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned advocate Shri Naik for Respondent No. 3 – ONGC, referring to the facts that had led the ONGC to file an application to implead it as party, has drawn attention to affidavit-in-reply filed by the ONGC in the present petition. It was pointed out that ONGC had filed a suit against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein to recover Rs. 1,15,41,961,72 ps. The said amount is for supply of gas by ONGC and transportation charges. It was also submitted that price rise in the gas supplied had led the Association to move the Court and the said litigation had reached upto the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, different companies including the present Respondent No. 1 had filed an undertaking to the effect that without the leave of the Court, they would not create any charge or any encumbrance on any of the immovable properties and that they would not alienate the immovable asset. It is no in dispute that the undertaking includes the suit property. Learned advocate has also drawn attention to agreement to sell wherein there is a reference to dues of ONGC. Learned advocate for the ONGC has distinguished the Kasturi’s case and other cases relied upon by the petitioner and has