2007 (10) TMI 653 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit for specific performance - Contract for sale - legal representatives impleaded - Seeking Permission to file additional written statement - application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) r/w Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Right to file a written statement - Violation of Natural Justice - HELD THAT - It may be noted that in the registered sale deed dated 12.8.1960 the shop in dispute has been mentioned and the sale was shown in favour of Kapoor Chand and his sons, Narainlal, Devilal and Pukhraj. Hence, the registered sale deed itself shows that the purchaser was not Kapoor Chand alone, but also his sons as co-owners. Hence, prima facie, it seems that the sons of Kapoor Chand are also co-owners of the property in dispute. However, we are not expressing any final opinion on the question whether they are co-owners as that would be decided in the suit. But we are certainly of the opinion that the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand have a right to take this defence by way of filing an additional written statement and adduce evidence in the suit. Whether this defence is accepted or not, of course, is for the trial court to decide. Hence, in our opinion, the courts below erred in law in rejecting the applications of the heirs of Kapoor Chand to file an additional written statement. In our opinion it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. In our opinion, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced. Also, merely because some applications have been rejected earlier it does not mean that the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand should not be allowed to file an additional written statement. In fact, no useful purpose would be served by merely allowing these legal representatives to be impleaded but not allowing them to file an additional written statement. In our opinion, this will clearly violate natural justice. Thus, the impugned orders of the High Court as well as the trial court, are set aside - Appellants shall be allowed to file additional written statement and thereafter the suit should proceed expeditiously in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
2. Right of legal representatives to file additional written statement.
3. Interpretation of Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC.
4. Application of precedent in specific performance suits.
5. Natural justice in allowing parties to present defenses.

Issue 1: Rejection of Application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC:
The case involved a revision petition filed in the High Court against the trial court's rejection of an application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The legal representatives of the deceased, Kapoor Chand, sought permission to file an additional written statement and take necessary pleas in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. The trial court and the High Court had both dismissed the application, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: Right of Legal Representatives to File Additional Written Statement:
The Supreme Court held that legal representatives have the right to present any defense they choose, emphasizing that the courts erred in rejecting the application to file an additional written statement. The Court highlighted that every party in a case has the right to file a written statement as per the principles of natural justice enshrined in the Civil Procedure Code.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC:
The Court clarified that Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC should not be construed in a restrictive manner, as suggested by the respondent's counsel. It emphasized that legal representatives have the right to take defenses and present evidence in a suit, and the trial court's rejection of their application was against the principles of natural justice.

Issue 4: Application of Precedent in Specific Performance Suits:
The Court distinguished a previous decision cited by the respondent, emphasizing that the legal representatives of Kapoor Chand, who were also co-owners of the disputed property, had a fair semblance of title and interest. The Court held that the previous decision did not preclude the legal representatives from participating in the suit for specific performance.

Issue 5: Natural Justice in Allowing Parties to Present Defenses:
The Court stressed the importance of upholding natural justice by allowing the legal representatives to file an additional written statement and participate fully in the suit. It noted that denying them the opportunity to present a defense would violate the principles of fairness and due process.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the trial court. The legal representatives were granted permission to file an additional written statement, and the suit was directed to proceed expeditiously in accordance with the law.