Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4156
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
B.S. Walia, J.
Ravi Kumar - Appellants
Versus
Jaswant Singh And Another - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 8900 of 2015
Decided On : 04-12-2018
Sandeep S Majithia, Adv., Sharad Mehra, Adv.
Impleadment of a necessary and proper party in a suit for specific performance is essential for an effective decree, as established by legal precedents.
Headnote:
Revision Petition - Impleadment of Party - Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17, Section 151 CPC - 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell. The defendants had transferred the property in question to a third party, and the plaintiffs sought to implead the third party as a necessary party and amend the pleadings accordingly. The trial court dismissed the applications for impleadment and amendment, citing delay in filing and nearing conclusion of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impleadment of the third party was essential for an effective decree to be passed, as per the legal principles established by the Supreme Court and various High Courts. The court also held that the application for impleadment was not barred by limitation.
Issues: The main issue was the belated application for impleadment and amendment, and the determination of whether the third party was a necessary and proper party for an effective decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal precedents to establish that in a suit for specific performance, the subsequent purchaser from the vendor is a necessary and proper party, and the proper form of decree would be to direct specific performance of the contract between the vendor and the plaintiff and direct the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance. The court also held that the application for impleadment was not barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned orders, and ordered the impleadment of the third party as a defendant, along with allowing the necessary amendments in the pleadings. The court directed the trial court to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law and decide the suit expeditiously.
JUDGMENT
B.S. Walia, J. - Revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P-1) dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC as also order dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P-2) dismissing application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant revision petition are that the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.09.2008 relating to the property fully detailed in the heading of the plaint. Written statement was filed by the respondents/defendants on 17.09.2012 taking up the plea that the property in question had already been transferred by Santosh Kaur (respondent/defendant No.2) qua her share vide Tabdeel Malkiat/transfer deed dated 21.06.2011, that perusal of the transfer deed revealed that the transfer had been made in favour of Pawandeep Singh son of Amarjit Singh (to the extent of half share) and Santosh Kaur (respondent /defendant No.2) and that the said Tabdeel Malkiat/transfer deed had been executed without payment of any stamp fee and without any consideration in connivance with Jaswant Singh (respondent /defendant No.1) to wriggle out of agreement dated 15.09.2008 so as to jeopardise the rights of the petitioners/plaintiffs created under the said agreement. In the aforementioned background, it was pleaded that the Tabdeel Malkiat/transfer deed was not binding or operative qua the rights of the petitioners/plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that Pawandeep Singh son of Amarjit Singh and Santosh Kaur (respondent/defendant No.2) was fully aware about the agreement to sell dated 15.09.2008 entered into between the parties and despite complete knowledge of the same, he had intentionally purchased the property in question. It was pleaded that the aforementioned facts had come to the notice of the counsel while preparing arguments in the case and that in the circumstances, the petitioners/plaintiffs wanted to implead said Pawandeep Singh as a party to the suit as defendant No.3 as he was a necessary and proper party in the case and in his absence, the matter in controversy could not be effectively and completely decided. It was further pleaded that earlier the case was being conducted by some other counsel and it was only when the case was being prepared for arguments by the new counsel that the aforementioned aspect of the matter came to notice.
3. In the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, the amendment of the plaint was sought as per details given as under:-
(a) At the end of the heading of the plaint, the following relief or declaration was sought to be added by way of amendment:-
"and declaration to the effect that the alleged Tabdeel Malkit/transfer deed dated 21.06.2011 registered vide document No.4218, bhai No.1, vol No.4451 at page No.35 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of Pawandeep Singh son of S. Amarjit Singh resident of House No.844/5, Sardar Avenue, Majitha Road, Amritsar, qua her share is illegal, null and void, without consideration and is not effective and binding qua the rights of the plaintiffs and is liable to be set aside."
(b) Whereas after para No.8 of the plaint, para No.8-A was sought to be added by way of amendment. The same is as under:-
"8-A. While preparing arguments in this case, it has transpired from the perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant that the property in question has already been transferred by Santosh Kaur, defendant No.2 qua her share vide Tabdeel Malkit/transfer deed dated 23.06.2011 registered vide document No.4218, bahi No.1, vol No.4451 at page No.35 and perusal of the transfer deed transpires that the same has been transferred in favour of Pawandeep Singh son of S. Amarjit Singh resident of House No.844/5, Sardar Avenue, Majitha Road, Amritsar to the extent of share and said Pawandeep Si
