The court held that parties whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication must be impleaded, affirming that the discretion to add such parties lies with the court to avoid multiplicity of suits.

ORDER :

1. The present petition is being filed by the Petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 28/09/2022 passed in Civil Suit No.138-A/2009 whereby the learned 28" District Judge, Indore has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for impleadment of certain persons as a necessary party to the civil suit.

2. Petitioner has filed a Civil Suit bearing No.RCS-138-A/2009 for specific performance and permanent injunction, being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent no.1-Badrilal alleging that initially on 28.06.2006 the respondent No.2 Damodar S/o Laxmanji Khati and respondent No.3 Shyam S/o Laxmanji Khati entered into an agreement to sale with respondent No.1 Badrilal S/o Kaniram of a land bearing Khasra No’s.435, 392, 394, Halka Patwari No.15/2, total Rakba 8.33 Acres situated, at Musakhedi, Tehsil and District Indore (M.P.) for a consideration of Rs. 15,00,000 Per/Acre and sum to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid as a part payment.

3. Subsequent to that on 17/10/2006, the respondent No.1-Badrilal entered into an agreement to sale of the said land to the present petitioner/ plaintiff through an agreement to sale dated 17/10/2006 and in pursuance of the said agreement part payment were also paid to respondent no.1. In spite of several reminders and legal notice the respondent no.1 did not perform his part of agreement, therefore, a notice for specific performance of agreement and execution of sale deed was issued by the petitioner however, since there was no response from the respondent no.1 petitioner filed the said civil suit.

4. It was further alleged that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed by one Vishnu Prasad, thereafter, the petitioner came to know that respondent no.2 &3 and Laxman had fraudulently entered into an another agreement to sale with Vishnu Prasad, for which a Civil Suit No.RCS-A-1200053/2016 was filed before XI Civil Judge, Class-I Indore by Vishnu. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC on 27.01.2022, which was dismissed on 20.09.2022 on the ground that the case is pending for more than 5 years and as per directions of Hon. High Court it has to be disposed of within 5 years. Therefore, petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment of proposed LRs of Laxman on 16.01.2022 and the same was rejected on the ground of maintainability that before impleading the proposed LRs it has to be decided as to whether they are necessary party or not. Being aggrieved by the said order this petition has been filed.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Learned Trial Judge failed to consider the fact that the Petitioner being vested with the Assignable Rights under section 15 of the Specific Relief Act was entitled to file the suit against Respondent No. 1. It is further submitted that this section entitles the Petitioner to file suit against Badrilal, Respondent No.1, because in the Agreement dated 17.10.2006 between Respondent 2 &3 & Badrilal, it wasn’t mentioned that rights under this agreement shall not be assignable. Thus, Badrilal got the assignable right vide agreement dated 28.02.2006 and was competent to execute the agreement dated 17.10.2006 in favour of the Petitioner Ankit Gupta. Counsel also submitted that learned trial Court erred in arriving at conclusion that suit could not have been filed against Badrilal, because suit of Specific Performance can be filed only against the person with whom the agreement was entered into. The proposed LRs are not part