Back
2003 Supreme(P&H) 910
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
Ram Sarup - Petitioner
Versus
Raminder Singh - Respondents
Civil Revision No. 3464 of 1995.
Decided On : 9 July, 2003
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ram Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. N.S. Virk, Advocate.
The court has discretion to implead a transferee to the suit property as a party, and a subsequent purchaser is considered a necessary party in a suit for specific performance.
Headnote:
Impleadment - Specific Performance - The court has discretion to implead a transferee to the suit property as a party, and it is not a substantive right but a procedural matter. A subsequent purchaser is considered a necessary party in a suit for specific performance.
Fact of the Case:
Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance. An application was filed for impleading more defendants to whom the suit land was transferred by the defendant during the pendency of the suit by way of a collusive decree. The amendment was allowed, leading to the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's decision to allow the impleadment of persons in whose favor the suit property was transferred did not suffer from any jurisdictional error and was within the court's discretion.
Issues: The issues involved the impleadment of additional defendants to the suit for specific performance, particularly those to whom the suit land was transferred during the pendency of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that impleading a transferee to the suit property is a procedural matter and not a substantive right. It also highlighted that a subsequent purchaser is considered a necessary party in a suit for specific performance.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision to allow the impleadment of persons in whose favor the suit property was transferred.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance. During pendency of the suit, an application was filed for impleading some more defendants to whom suit land was transferred by the defendant during pendency of the suit by way of a collusive decree. The said amendment has been allowed. Hence, this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC had been dismissed. Copy of the order dismissing earlier application has not been shown. In absence thereof it is not clear as to under what circumstances the earlier application was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to decision of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra, 1995(3) SCC 147 wherein the Apex Court dismissed SLP against an order refusing to impleaded a person in whose favour a collusive decree was passed during pendency of the suit for specific performance. A close examination of the said judgment shows that no rule of law is laid down that court has no jurisdiction to implead a transferee to the suit property as party. In para 7, it was observed that "to bring a person as party defendant is not a substantive right but one of procedure and the court has discretion in its proper exercise." In para 10, reference was made to earlier judgment of the Apex Court in Lal Durga Prasad and another v. Lala Deep Chand and others, 1954 SCR 360 holding that in a suit for specific performance, subsequent purchaser was necessary party. Thus, even though, the Apex Court did not find any error in the view taken in the facts of that case that transferee of suit property was not a necessary party and order refusing to implead such a person as party was not without jurisdiction, in the same judgment, reference was made to Lala Durga Prasad (supra) to the effect that subsequent purchaser was a necessary party.
For these reasons, it cannot be held that the trial court could not implead persons in whose favour suit property was transferred. If the trial court has permitted impleadment of persons in whose favour property was transferred during pendency of the suit, it cannot be held that the view taken by the trial court suffers from any jurisdictional error.
Dismissed.
Revision dismissed.
