Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—Reportable Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 17th August, 2007, whereby the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the application of the petitioner-plaintiff filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC.

2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondents-defendants. The respondents-defendants filed the written statement of defence and in Para 1 whereof, it was stated that out of total land in question, 3 bigha and 1.5 biswa land, had already been sold to the society Bhankrota Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') by their predecessor Kalu Ram on 1st May, 1995. Having come to know about the fact of the said sale to 'the Society', the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, imploring the court to allow him to implead 'the Society' as party defendant. The learned trial court dismissed the application, hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that 'the Society' is a necessary party in the suit, as a part of the suit land was sold by the defendant-vendor to 'the Society' and in the absence of 'the Society', the suit cannot be adjudicated. In case, 'the Society' is not impleaded as party defendant, will have to file a separate suit for cancellation of the sale-deed, which will give rise to the multiplicity of litigation. The learned trial court dismissed the said application arbitrarily sans assigning any cogent reason. The finding recorded by the learned trial court is arbitrary and perverse, hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He has cited the case of Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal & Others reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2813, in support thereof.

4. E converso, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper and contended that it did not warrant any intervention. Learned counsel further canvassed that 'the Society' does not exist and its registration has been cancelled. The Society has not been functioning. Apart this, 'the Society' was not a party to the contract and a third party or a stranger claiming the independent title and possession of the contracted land is neither a necessary party nor a proper party, hence, the same is not entitled to join as a party defendant in the suit. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants also has placed reliance on the same judgment of Kasturi (supra), which has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is relevant to record that 'the Society's' registration has been cancelled and no officer thereof has been functioning. 'The Society', as of today, does not possess any status. Otherwise too, 'the Society' is not found to be a party to contract. It is a third party, who is stranger to the contract, hence, 'the Society' is neither found to be a necessary party nor proper party, who can be allowed to join as a party defendant in the suit.

6. In the case of Kasturi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:-

“In a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale the lis between the appellant-purchaser and the respondent-vendor shall only be gone into and it is also not open to the Court to decide whether the third party have acquired any title and possession of the contracted property as that would not be germane for decision in the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale. Two tests by which a person who is seeking addition in a pending suit for specific performance of the contract for sale must be satisfied. Two tests are -(1) there mus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document