Petitioner, impleading applicant in O.S.No.273/2022 to

come on record as additional defendant is before this Court

aggrieved by the rejection of application filed by him under

Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to come on record as additional

defendant in the above stated suit.

Heard learned counsel Sri. Mahabaleshwara Rao for

the petitioner at length and perused the petition papers.

The suit is one for partition and possession of the

suit schedule properties. Learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that the defendants in the suit have remained

absent and they are placed exparte. In the said circumstances,

the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of

CPC to come on record as additional defendant in the above

stated suit. Learned counsel would submit that respondent No.3

herein who is defendant No.2 before the trial court executed

agreement dated 10.05.2013 agreeing to sell suit schedule

item No.1 of 'B' schedule property. It is also stated in the

agreement that defendant No.2 has received Rs.10.00 lakhs

out of the total sale consideration of Rs.11.00 lakhs. Learned

- 4 -

counsel would submit that since defendant No.2 has executed

agreement to sell in favour of the impleading applicant-

petitioner herein, the petitioner would be interested party and

would also be necessary party to the partition suit. Learned

counsel in support of his submissions placed reliance on the

following decisions of this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court:-

1. Razia Begaum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum

and others reported in AIR 1958 SC 886;

2. Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal

Corporation of Greater Bombay and others

reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524;

3. Amit Kumar Shaw and another v. Farida

Khatoon and another reported in AIR 2005

SC 2209;

4. Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi

and Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 2161.

5. G.M.V.

Krishnamachaari

v.

M.D.

Dhanalakshmi Ammal and others reported

in AIR 1968 Madras 142.

6. Sri. K.V. Jayaprakash v. Smt. Rathnamma

and Others reported in 2014(4) KCCR 3475.

- 5 -

The above decisions on which learned counsel for

the petitioner placed reliance, considered impleadment of a

party based on the facts of those particular cases. The Hon'ble

Apex Court has held that unless a person has a legal interest in

the subject matter of the litigation, one cannot be permitted to

implead himself as party to the suit.

The trial court on considering the contentions of the

petitioner under impugned order rejected the application filed

under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC holding that no interest in

immovable property is created in favour of the agreement

holder i.e., the petitioner herein and as such he is not a

necessary or proper party to the partition suit.

6.

Admittedly, the petitioner herein is an agreement

holder with defendant No.2 of agreement dated 10.05.2013.

The petitioner is only an agreement holder and he has not

acquired right over Item No.1 of suit schedule 'B' property.

Moreover,

petitioner’s

suit

for

specific

performance

in

O.S.No.1651/2013 is pending. Depending on the outcome of

the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff could seek appropriate

relief.

- 6 -

7.

The impugned order is dated 10.03.2023 and the

present writ petition is filed before this Court on 18.08.2023.

By the time, the writ petition is filed, the suit is already set

down for judgment. Since the suit is set down for judgment, I

decline to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.

SD/-

JUDGE

MN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

CT:SNN