The decision to allow subsequent purchasers as parties in specific performance suits is justified when they demonstrate a semblance of title or interest to the property, supporting effective judicial resolution.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, J.

1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Patti, vide which the application filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”) for being impleaded as defendants in the suit, was allowed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit for declaration by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 13.02.2017 with regard to land measuring 68 kanals 14 marlas (fully described in the suit) situated within the revenue estate of Village Kot Data, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran (hereinafter referred to as the “disputed land”) was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against respondent No.1 (Gurwant Singh). The total sale consideration is stated to have been fixed at Rs.95 lakhs out of which, a sum of Rs.65 lakhs was paid on different dates starting from the date of execution of the agreement to sell till 20.09.2020. The balance amount was Rs.30 lakhs, which was to be paid on the date of execution of the sale deed, which was initially fixed as 13.02.2019 but was extended from time to time and was finally fixed as 08.11.2021.

3. During the pendency of the said suit, respondents No.2 and 3 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (Annexure P-1) for being impleaded as defendants. The case set up by them was that they had purchased half share out of the land measuring 79 kanals 14 marlas from Bakhshish Kaur and Surinder Kaur, who had become owners of land measuring 79 kanals 14 marlas after a litigation with Gurwant Singh. The suit filed by Bakhshish Kaur was decreed on 05.04.2017 and the appeal preferred by Gurwant Singh was dismissed on 29.11.2019, after which sale deed dated 13.09.2021 was executed in their favour. Their case was that the present suit was the result of collusion between the petitioner (Parkash Kaur) and respondent No.1 (Gurwant Singh).

4. The application was opposed by way of reply (Annexure P-2), wherein the stand taken was that the application was collusive between the applicants and Gurwant Singh. A stand was taken that in the suit referred to in the application, Gurwant Singh had not appeared and also that an FIR under Section 420 /120-B IPC had been registered against Bakhshish Kaur and Gurwant Singh. It was also stated that the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2019 passed in first appeal was under challenge in RSA-1369-2020. It was averred that the sale deed dated 13.09.2021 executed in favour of the applicants was not binding upon the petitioner (Parkash Kaur). The application was allowed by way of the impugned order leading to filing of the present revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable, for, the settled law is that it is the plaintiff who is the dominus litis and, therefore, he cannot be forced to add a party against whom he does not wish to litigate. Learned counsel submitted that especially in suits for specific performance of contracts, a subsequent purchaser would neither be a necessary party nor a proper party and, being a stranger to the contract, was not required to be added as a party. It was also submitted that the litigation referred to was, in fact, collusive litigation, which had been initiated with a view to defeat the rights of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that under the circumstances, the application for impleadment had erroneously been allowed by the trial Court and that the impugned order deserves to be set asi