Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2361
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Abhinava Upadhya, J.
Hirendra Singh Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Sri Bholey Singh And 7 Others - Respondent
Writ - C No. - 41526 of 2014
Decided On : 11-08-2014
For the Petitioner: Rajeev Sharma.
Co-sharers claiming vital interest in the property can be impleaded as necessary parties in a suit, as any order in the suit would affect their rights.
Headnote:
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Impleadment of Co-sharers - The court allowed the impleadment of co-sharers as necessary parties in a suit for specific performance, as their vital interest in the property would be affected by the outcome of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the trial court's order allowing the impleadment of Smt. Niranjana Devi and Smt. Neetu Devi as parties in a suit for specific performance against Bhole Singh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impleadment of the co-sharers was justified as they claimed to be co-sharers of the property in question and their vital interest would be affected by the outcome of the suit.
Issues: The main issue was whether Smt. Niranjana Devi and Smt. Neetu Devi should be impleaded as parties in the suit for specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the co-sharers claimed to have a vital interest in the property, and any order in the suit would affect their rights as well.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's decision to allow the impleadment of Smt. Niranjana Devi and Smt. Neetu Devi as necessary parties in the suit.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the trial court passed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC against impleadment of Smt. Niranjana Devi and Smt. Neetu Devi. The petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance against one Bhole Singh. In the said suit Smt. Niranjana Devi and Smt Neetu Devi filed an application for being impleaded on the ground that they are co-sharer of the property in question. The court below by the impugned order allowed them to be impleaded as party against which revision was filed and the revision has also been rejected holding that they are necessary party in the proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no grievance against Smt. Niranjana Devi and Smt. Neetu Devi as agreement to sell has been executed by one Bholey Singh as such those are not necessary party. Smt. Niranjana Devi and Smt. Neetu Devi are claiming themselves to be the co-sharer of the property in question. In case they are co-sharer, they have vital interest involved in the said suit and any order that is being passed in the said suit for specific performance would affect their right also. As such the court below has rightly impleaded them as party.
3. There is no merit in the writ petition which may merit any further consideration by this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
