Honble MAHESHWARI, J.—By way of this writ petition the petitioners-applicants seek to question the order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Deedwana in Civil Suit No.10/2001 whereby, inter alia, their application for impleadment in the suit for specific performance has been declined.

2. Briefly put, the facts and aspects relevant for the present purpose as emerging from the material placed on record are that the suit in question has been filed on 01.09.1993 by the plaintiff Omprakash (respondent No. 2 herein) against the defendants Motaram (respondent No. 3 herein) and his sons Ramdhan (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives respondents Nos. 4/1 to 4/10 herein) and Pemaram (respondent No. 5 herein). The plaintiff Omprakash has alleged the defendants Motaram, Ramdhan and Pemaram having entered into an agreement on 02.09.1990 to sell 100 bighas of southern portion of their agricultural land comprised in Khasra No. 48 at Village Audit, Tehsil Ladnu to him for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-, having received an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, having agreed to receive the remaining amount at the time of registration of sale document, and having executed an agreement in his favour. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendants were avoiding to execute the sale document despite requests, were seeking to frustrate his rights, and intended to sell the land to someone else for higher price; and while taking other pleas regarding service of notice and his readiness to get the transaction completed, the plaintiff has prayed for the relief of specific performance of the agreement and in the alternative, if the court would not consider granting a decree for specific performance because of any reason, for a decree for refund of the amount paid by him with interest @ 18% per annum.

3. The defendants, while denying the plaint allegations have pleaded, inter alia, that the plaintiff was introduced by one Shri Ramavatar son of Budhmal Agarwal; that the defendants stated their terms of selling the land in question for a price calculated @ Rs. 10,000/- per bigha; that the plaintiff himself got prepared the document and obtained the signatures/thumb impressions of the defendants taking them in confidence; that the plaintiff also obtained the signatures of Shri Ramavatar on the said document while stating that the earnest money shall be paid the next morning; that next day, Shri Ramavatar found the plaintiff having gone to Assam without making payment and assured the defendants that upon the plaintiff’s return, the deal would be cancelled. The defendants have maintained that the plaintiff got executed the document of agreement without making any payment and the document does not state the terms of deal, particularly of the consideration that was, according to the defendants, settled at Rs. 10,000/- per bigha and not Rs. 1,000/- per bigha.

4. It appears from the observations made in the impugned order that the suit has registered progress in trial and was fixed for final arguments on 17.11.2007 when three applications came to be filed before the learned Trial Court. By way of an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) the defendants sought amendment of the written statement, inter alia, for incorporation of the plea that the land in question is an ancestral property received from their ancestor Shri Bheraram (father of the defendant No.1 Motaram); and while giving the family pedigree, the defendants would assert that all the members of joint family are necessary parties to the suit and that the transaction remains null and void being not for any legal necessity of the family.

5. The present petitioners moved another application under Order I Rule 10 CPC (Annex.3). The petitioner No. 1 Devaram stated himself being the son of the daughter of Bheraram; and the petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 stated themselves being the daughters of Motaram (defendant No.1). The petitioners-applicants, wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document