The court ruled that a party cannot be impleaded unless their presence is necessary for the effective adjudication of the suit, emphasizing the plaintiff's right as dominus litis.

JUDGMENT :

Saral Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Ms Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff/revisionist and Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of the present civil revision, the plaintiff/revisionist has assailed the order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bareilly by which he has allowed the application 151Ka and application 227Ga of Dharmendra Kumar Rathore-respondent no.1 for impleading him as 'defendant' in Original Suit No.530 of 2017.

3. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff/revisionist is a private limited company duly registered with the Registrar of Companies Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, Kanpur on 07.07.2011. The plaintiff-revisionist has instituted the Original Suit No.530 of 2017 praying for a decree of specific performance of agreement to sale dated 12.07.2011 executed by respondent no.2 (defendant no.1 in original suit) in favour of plaintiff/revisionist registered in the office of Sub-Registrar-II, Bareilly on 12.07.2011, and a direction to the respondent no.2 to execute the sale deed of the land described in the plaint and in the agreement to sale dated 12.07.2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') in favour of plaintiff/revisionist after taking the balance sale consideration of Rs.2 crore & 28 lacs from the plaintiff/revisionist. It is further prayed that respondent no.3 (defendant no.2 in the original suit) and respondent no.5 (defendant no.4 in the original suit) be also directed to join with defendant no.1 as sellers in the said sale deed. The plaintiff/revisionist further prayed for a decree declaring the two sale deeds dated 11.11.2011 registered on 15.11.2011 and the sale deed dated 29.11.2012 registered on 01.12.2012 as null and void.

4. The case of the plaintiff/revisionist is that respondent no.2 agreed to sell the plaintiff/revisionist his Bhumidhari land detailed in paragraph 4 of the plaint situated at village Bilwa, Tehsil and District Bareilly. Respondent no.2 for the said purpose executed a registered agreement to sale dated 12.07.2011 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar II, Bareilly on 12.07.2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'agreement') in favour of the plaintiff/revisionist through its two Directors namely, Dharmendra Kumar Rathore and Smt. Neetu Sahu. The total amount of sale consideration for the suit property under the agreement was Rs.3,28,00,000/- (Rs.3 crores & 28 lac) out of which, an amount of Rs.1 crore was paid to respondent no.2 by plaintiff/revisionist as part of sale consideration and balance amount of sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed.

5. Under the agreement, six months was stipulated for the execution of the sale deed, and it was also agreed between the plaintiff/revisionist and respondent no.2 that the plaintiff/revisionist as prospective purchaser shall be at liberty to get the sale deed executed in its name or the name of other person or persons, firm or company of its choice and may also get the sale deed executed in one go or in parts as may be permissible under the relevant revenue law. It is also agreed that all the costs and expenses of registration, stamp duty etc. shall be borne by the plaintiff/revisionist.

6. Initially, on 07.07.2011 at the time of incorporation of the plaintiff/revisionist's company, Dharmendra Kumar Rathore and Smt. Neetu Sahu were promoters and first Directors of the company. Thereafter, Bharat Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Smita Agarwal became shareholders of the plaintiff/revisionist's company by purchasing 25% shares of the company by each of them w.e.f. 11.07.2011. Thus, Dharmendra Kumar Rathore, Smt. Neetu Sahu, Bharat Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Smita Agarwal became the shareholder of the plaintiff/revisionist's company each having 25% shares in the company. Bharat Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Smita Agarwal were also appointed Directors of the plaintiff/revisionist's company on 18.07.2