The captioned writ petition is filed by the

petitioner-plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order of

the Trial Judge passed on I.A.No.8 filed under Order

VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC.,

2. The petitioner 3 plaintiff has instituted a suit

seeking relief of specific performance of contract in

O.S.No.4554/2015. Pending consideration of suit, the

petitioner 3 plaintiff came to know that his vendors

Nos.1 and 2 i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 2 have created

collusive

documents.

Based

on

the

collusive

documents, decree is passed between defendant

Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.4 and therefore, an

4

impleading application is filed to implead defendant

No.4. The said application was not contested.

3. The proposed defendant No.4, who has a

benefit of the decree in O.S.No.2862/2009 dated

04.06.2016,

did

not

contest

the

impleading

application. The learned Judge allowed the impleading

application and defendant No.4 was brought on

record. Consequent to impleadment of defendant

No.4, the petitioner 3 plaintiff sought relief of

declaration to declare the judgment and decree dated

04.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.286/2016 is not binding

on him. This application is rejected by the learned

Judge on the premises that petitioner 3 plaintiff if is

really aggrieved by the judgment and decree can seek

redressal of his grievance by filing independent suit.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner 3 plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.3 3 defendant No.3.

5

5. The material on record reveals that there are

multiple transactions at the instance of the owners

i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.3 is

asserting title on the basis of the registered sale deed,

whereas the plaintiff is asserting right based on an

agreement to sell dated 05.04.2008 for a sale

consideration of Rs.2,20,00,000/-. The plaintiff alleged

that

he

has

paid

an

advance

amount

of

Rs.10,00,000/-. At the same time, defendant No.4 is

also asserting right on the basis of an agreement to

sell executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant

No.4 further filed a suit for specific performance of

contract in O.S.No.2862/2009. The said suit was

decreed exparte.

6. If all the significant details are taken into

consideration, then the rival claims made by the

plaintiff and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are inter

connected, the rights of the plaintiff and defendant

6

Nos.3 to 5 cannot be independently determined.

Though in a suit for specific performance, it is the suit

agreement, which has to be adjudicated upon, but

having regard to the nature of the rival claims made in

the present case on hand, it would be advisable that

rights of all the parties have to be adjudicated so as to

avoid the conflicting judgment. If the plaintiff is

relegated to pursue his remedy to challenge and

decree in O.S.No.2862/2009 by way of separate suit,

then the said suit may also lead to multiplicity of

proceedings.

7. The Hon9ble Apex Court in the case of

SAMPATH KUMAR VS. AYYAKANNU AND OTHERS

reported in (2002)7 SUPREME COURT CASES 559

held that if a party can maintain an independent suit,

then the said proposed amendment has to be allowed

and the parties are to be relegated in the very

7

pending suit and not by separate suit. Paragraph No.7

of the judgment reads as under;

"7. In our opinion, the basic structure

of the suit is not altered by the proposed

amendment. What is sought to be changed

is the nature of relief sought for by the

plaintiff. In the opinion of the trial Court, it

was open to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit

and that is one of the reasons which has

prevailed with the trial Court and with the

High Court in refusing the prayer for

amendment and also in dismissing the

plaintiff's revision. We fail to understand, if

it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an

independent suit, why the same relief

which could be prayed for in a new suit

cannot be permitted to be incorporated in

the pending suit. In the facts and

circumstances of the present case, allowing