Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 634
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Kulbhushan – Petitioner
Versus
Bhupinder Kaur & Ors. – Respondents
CR-712 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-07-2024
Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate for the Respondents
Only parties to an agreement to sell are necessary to be impleaded in a suit for specific performance; representatives do not qualify as necessary parties.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule 10 - Suit for possession by way of specific performance - Application to implead a party dismissed by trial court on grounds of necessity - Court held that only parties to the agreement need to be impleaded, and the representative of a party is not necessary. (Paras 1, 4, 5)
(B) Revision Petition - Challenge to trial court's order - No grounds for interference found as the necessary parties were already impleaded. (Paras 5, 6)
JUDGMENT
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral)
The plaintiff's (petitioner's) suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell is pending before the trial court. The suit has been filed against Smt.Bhupinder Kaur and late Sh.Piara Singh. Sh.Piara Singh is said to have died and his legal representatives have already been impleaded. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with a prayer to implead Sh.Baljinder Singh as party defendant on the ground that he has received Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- on 21.03.2007 and Rs.4,00,000/- on 16.04.2007) on behalf of Smt.Bhupinder Kaur-his aunt. The trial court has dismissed the application on the ground that Sh.Baljinder Singh is not a necessary party and the plaintiff or the defendant, if so advised, may produce Sh.Baljinder Singh as a witness. The correctness of the aforesaid order is challenged in this revision petition.
2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that Sh.Baljinder Singh has received the substantial part of the earnest money and if the plaintiff is found entitled to alternative relief of recovery of amount, impleadment of Sh.Baljinder Singh as a party defendant shall be necessary.
3. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties.
4. Sh.Baljinder Singh is not alleged to have received the amount on his behalf. He is alleged to have received the amount on behalf of his aunt-Smt.Bhupinder Kaur. At the most, he is representative of Smt.Bhupinder Kaur. In a suit for possession by way of the specific performance of the agreement to sell, only the individuals who have entered into the agreement to sell are required to be impleaded as parties. In this case, they have already been impleaded.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground to interfere is made out.
6. Hence, dismissed.
7. Earlier the petitioner was directed to prepare a demand draft of Rs.50,000/-. He shall have liberty to retain the same. Needless to observe that the observations made by this Court or in the impugned order passed by the trial court, shall not be construed as the final expression on the merits of the case.
8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
