The court established that necessary parties must be joined in a specific performance suit to ensure complete adjudication, emphasizing the importance of the doctrine of lis pendens.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the petitioners pray to quash and set aside order dated 17.12.2012 passed below application Exh.45 for amendment in Special Civil Suit No.414 of 1992, whereby the learned trial Court, Surat rejected application Exh.45.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Premal Rachh for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Amit Thakkar for respondent No.5. Learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah for respondent No.3.1 is absent when the matter is called out.

3. The petitioners – original plaintiffs have filed the aforestated Special Civil Suit seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction so also specific performance of the agreement to sell. The ex parte injunction was granted below Exh.5 in the suit and it was confirmed by parte. It is pleaded that in violation of the injunction order, the defendants of the suit have sold the property to third party. Later on, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. Then an application for restoration as well as delay application have been moved and both were allowed. However, as per the plaintiffs, during the hearing of the restoration application, the defendants of the suit have sold the property to third party and therefore, an application was moved at Exh.45 to amend the plaint with the following relief:-

“1. Be pleased to permit the necessary amendment by granting the amendment mentioned in para 4 of the said amendment application.

2. The cost of this application may be awarded from the defendants.

3. Looking to the over all facts of this application, the Hon’ble Court may grant any other relief which may be deemed fit and proper.”

3.1 The application at Exh.45 is rejected, hence, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India .

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397 would submit that the transferee/purchaser pendente lite in suit for specific performance is required to be impleaded, but the learned trial Court has not allowed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint accordingly. He would further submit that proposed partyies are purchaser pendente lite, is undisputed aspect. He would further submit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and complete adjudication of the issue, proposed parties are necessary parties, hence, they are to be joined and amendment impleading to that effect is also required to be allowed. He would further submit that learned trial Court committed serious error by not allowing the application. Two other judgments are also referred to and relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Rachh; first in case of Kamlesh Gupta Vs. Mangat Rai reported in 2020(17) SCC 132 (para 9 to 13) and second in case of Robin Ramjibhai Patel Vs. Anandibai Rama @ Rajaram Pawar reported in 2018(15) SCC 614 (para 7 to 11).

4.1 Upon above submission, learned advocate Mr. Rachh prays to allow this petition.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Amit Thakkar for respondent No.5 – proposed party would submit that joining the party would change the suit from the suit for specific performance to the suit for title. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has given elaborate findings for not amending the plaint. He would further submit that the transaction which took place in favour of the defendants herein did not take place during the pendency of the suit, but when the suit was dismissed for default, the defendants of the suit have sold the disputed property to the proposed party – respondents and therefore, it cannot be said that the trans