IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Divyesh A. Joshi, J.
Bileshwar Corporation - Appellant
Vs.
Shantinagar (Shela) Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 18543 of 2023 With Civil Application (For Vacating Interim Relief) No. 1 of 2023 In Special Civil Application No. 18543 of 2023 With Civil Application (Fixing Date Of Early Hearing) No. 2 of 2023
Decided On : 20-12-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ application for quashing order allowing impleadment of parties in specific performance suit - The trial court allowed the impleadment of parties not privy to the contract, which contravenes established legal principles regarding necessary parties in specific performance cases. (Paras 12, 21)
Facts of the case:
The writ applicant, an original plaintiff, sought specific performance of a contract against the original defendant. The trial court allowed an application to join additional defendants, which the plaintiff challenged.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the additional parties were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit, as they were not parties to the original contract.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in allowing the impleadment of parties not privy to the contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that only parties to the contract or their legal representatives can be joined in a suit for specific performance, reaffirming the principle that the plaintiff is the dominus litis.
Result: The impugned order was quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Divyesh A. Joshi, J.
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or on appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order Annexure-A dated 24.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sanand, Ahmedabad (Rural) below Exh.69 in Special Civil Suit No.407 of 2017;
(C ) Pending hearing and till final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order Annexure-A dated 24.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sanand, Ahmedabad (Rural) below Exh.69 in Special Civil Suit No.407 of 2017.
(D) Any other relief deemed just and proper may please be granted in the interest of justice.”
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of the present application are as under:-
2.1 The writ applicant herein is the original plaintiff, who instituted the suit being Special Civil Suit No.407 of 2017 (Old Special Civil Suit No.272 of 2013) against the respondent No.1- original defendant, seeking specific performance of contract as well as permanent injunction on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 22.12.2006 as well as on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the original plaintiff and the respondent No.1.
2.2 The respondent No.1 herein appeared in the suit proceedings and filed an application Exh.15 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for rejection of the plaint, which came to be allowed vide order dated 06.07.2022 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad.
2.3 The writ applicant-original plaintiff assailed the said order dated 06.07.2022 before this Court by way of filing First Appeal No.2320 of 2022, and the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 06.10.2022 allowed the first appeal, thereby ordered to restore the suit proceedings.
2.4 Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1 carried the aforesaid order dated 06.10.2022 before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition No.20976 of 2022, wherein while issuing notice, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed the trial court to continue with the suit proceedings, but restrained to pass any final judgment.
2.5 In the interregnum, the respondent No.1 filed an application Exh.60 dated 01.11.2022 before the learned trial court to reopen the stage of filing of the written statement which was closed earlier, however, the same application was not entertained by the trial court and rejected the same, against which, the respondent No.1 preferred Special Civil Application No.22297 of 2022 before this Court, and this Court, vide order dated 09.11.2022 allowed the petition thereby quashed and set aside the order dated 01.11.2022.
2.6 During the pendency of the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.22297 of 2022, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein preferred an application Exh.69 on 15.11.2022 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking to be impleaded as the party, wherein the present writ applicant also filed its reply.
2.7. Thereafter, after considering the pleadings of the parties and arguments for both the sides, the learned trial court vide order dated 30.11.2022, allowed the Exh.5 injunction application of the present writ applicant and directed the respondent No.1 to maintain the status quo qua the suit property till the final outcome of the suit, against which, the respondent No.1 preferred Appeal From Order No.203 of 2022 before this Court, and this Court, vide order dated 20.06.2023, allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the injunction order dated 30.11.2022 passed below Exh.5 application.
2.8 The writ applicant herein carried the aforesaid order dated 20.06.2023 in appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special Le
Only parties to a contract can be joined in a specific performance suit; others are neither necessary nor proper parties.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impleadment of a party is not necessary if no legal right has been created in their favor, and their presence is not required to effective....
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 ....
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 the court has the discretion to determine whether a party is necessary for effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit, and the ....
A party to a contract for sale is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance, while a person claiming adversely is not; the court recognized the petitioner as a proper party for effective a....
Lis pendens purchasers are not necessary or proper parties in a specific performance suit, as their absence does not impede the passing of an effective decree.
The court established that in specific performance cases, all parties with a direct interest must be included to ensure effective adjudication and uphold the doctrine of Us pendens.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.