The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Civil Revision Petition No.2748 of 2024

Order:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 in I.A.No.885 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge at Medak.

2. Heard Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sathvik Makunur, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/implead petitioners.

3. A petition vide I.A.No.885 of 2023 was filed by the respondents/implead petitioners under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC to implead them as defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the main suit i.e. O.S.No.31 of 2023. The main suit is filed for specific performance of Memorandum of understanding dated 14.05.2015 and Agreement of sale dated 14.05.2015 and consequential declaration that the sale deed document bearing No.2491 of 2018 is null and void. Upon considering the merits of the case of respondents, the petition was allowed i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 3 are impleaded as defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the main suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred.

4. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the learned Trial Court did not examine whether the proposed parties i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 3 were proper and necessary parties for adjudication of a suit for specific performance of Memorandum of understanding and Agreement of sale, both dated 14.05.2015. It is further contended that an effective decree can be passed even in the absence of respondent Nos.1 to 3 against whom no relief is sought. The controversy is only between the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 7, between whom the Memorandum of understanding and Agreement of sale, both dated 14.05.2015 are executed. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not parties to the Memorandum of understanding or Agreement of sale. Further, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not interested parties and are completely third parties. It is further pleaded that the parties who are claiming independent title and possession adverse to that of possession of vendor cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance by increasing the scope of enquiry into a suit for declaration of the title of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court has believed the version of respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the suit schedule property was undivided share of Madhav Rao, Srinivas Rao and Padma Rao by failing to consider that the averments of the title of the vendor does not come under the purview of suit for specific performance. The learned Trial Court according to the revision petitioner erred in coming to conclusion that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are having an interest in the property and that they are proper and necessary parties. It is dominus litus pleaded that the plaintiff is the and the learned Trial Court cannot allow the respondent Nos.1 to 3 be arrayed as parties and compel the revision petitioner/plaintiff to agitate against them, against whom he does not want to contest/agitate.

On the basis of aforementioned grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

5. During arguments in revision, the learned counsel for the dominus litus revision petitioner contended that the plaintiff is in a suit for specific performance and he has a right to choose against dominus whom he wishes to contest the suit. It is argued that the litus should not be compelled to agitate against the parties against whom he does not want to contest. Further, it is pleaded that in a suit for specific performance, others who are not parties to the Memorandum of understanding and Agreement of sale both dated 14.05.2015 are not necessary parties and therefore, the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the implead petition. In this regard, the learned counsel for revisions petitioner relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Cort of India in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, (2005) 6 SCC 733, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court consid