The present respondents No.1, 2, and 3, as plaintiffs,

have instituted a suit in O.S.No.104/2010, against the

present respondents No.4 and 5 arraigning them as

defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the Court of the learned II

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,

Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial

Court”) for the relief of specific performance with respect to

sale of an immovable property.

2. During the pendency of the suit, the present

petitioner, claiming himself as another agreement holder for

sale dated 16-05-2008 of the very same suit schedule

property in his favour by the defendants No.1 and 2, filed

an interlocutory application, i.e. I.A.No.4 under Order I Rule

10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for

brevity referred to as “the CPC”) seeking his impleadment in

the suit as defendant No.3. The Trial Court, vide its order

24-03-2016,

rejected

the

said

interlocutory

application. Aggrieved by the same, the impleading

4

applicant (petitioner herein) in the Trial Court has preferred

this writ petition.

3. Learned

Senior

Counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner, in his argument submitted that, the present

petitioner is a necessary party for the adjudication of the

dispute in O.S.No.104/2010. After entering into a

registered sale agreement dated 16-05-2008 (Annexure C)

for purchase of immovable property from the defendants 1

and 2, the present petitioner has also paid the balance

amount of the sale consideration through a supplementary

agreement dated 02-07-2008 (Annexure D) and also has

obtained a registered irrevocable power of attorney

(Annexure E) in his favour. Thus, the said registered

agreement at Annexure C has acted as a public notice.

Therefore, the

plaintiffs are supposed to have the

knowledge of the said transaction, as such, should have

impleaded the present petitioner also as a party in the

original suit filed by them.

5

Contending that the ratio of law laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs.

Kiran Kant Robinson and others reported in (2020) 13

Supreme Court Cases 773 would not come in the way of

the petitioner herein getting himself impleaded in the

original suit filed by the plaintiffs, the learned Senior

Counsel relied upon few reported judgments of the Hon’ble

Apex Court, which would be referred to herein afterwards at

the appropriate stages.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3

(plaintiffs) in his brief argument submitted that, since the

time was the essence of the contract under the alleged

agreement of sale held by the present petitioner in their

support, and due to efflux of the said time, the petitioner’s

agreement has come to a close. Further, the petitioner’s

right to sue for specific performance also has stood

extinguished.

Learned counsel further submitted that, in the

circumstance of the case, it is Gurmit Singh Bhatia’s case

6

(supra) which holds the field and the Trial Court has rightly

exercised its discretion with reasons which does not warrant

any interference at the hands of this Court.

5. The present petitioner contends that with respect

to the very same suit schedule property, which is the

subject matter in O.S.No.104/2010, he too has an

agreement for sale in his favour executed by the very same

vendors on date 16-05-2008, a copy of which he has

produced at Annexure ‘C’. It is his further contention that

the balance sale consideration was also paid by him through

the

supplementary

agreement

02-07-2008

(Annexure D) and has obtained an irrevocable power of

attorney executed by the vendors in his favour as per

Annexure E, as such, he is a necessary party in

O.S.No.104/2010.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

contending that the present petitioner has a direct interest

in the suit transaction, as such, he is a necessary party,

7

relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and

others reported in AIR 1958 SUPREME