9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the respondent should be impleaded as a party defendant in a suit for specific performance of a contract. 2. Applicability of Order 22, Rule 10, Order 1 Rule 3, and Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code in the present case. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought to amend the plaint in a suit for specific performance to include the respondent as a party defendant, contending that the respondent's interest as a co-owner, acquired through a separate decree, made them a necessary and proper party. However, the Supreme Court held that the respondent was not a necessary party as they were not a party to the original contract. The court emphasized that for a person to be considered a necessary party, there must be a right to relief against them in the dispute and their presence should be essential to adjudicate all questions in the suit effectively. Since the respondent did not meet these criteria, they were not deemed necessary to the suit for specific performance. 2. The Court examined the applicability of Order 22, Rule 10, Order 1 Rule 3, and Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. Order 22, Rule 10 allows for the continuation of a suit by or against a person who acquires interest during the pendency of the suit. However, in this case, the respondent's interest as a co-owner was not obtained through assignment, creation, or devolution, and thus, this rule did not apply. Order 1 Rule 3 was also deemed inapplicable since the respondent was not a party to the original contract, which is a prerequisite for joinder as a defendant under this rule. Furthermore, Order 1 Rule 10(2) empowers the court to add or strike out parties as necessary for effective adjudication of the suit. The Court clarified that the respondent, having obtained interest through a separate decree, was neither a necessary nor a proper party for the specific performance suit, as their presence was not crucial to settling the dispute effectively. 3. The Court cited precedents to support its decision, emphasizing that a person may only be added as a party defendant if their presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the suit's issues. The Court distinguished between necessary and proper parties, highlighting that the respondent, in this case, did not meet the criteria to be considered either. Based on the Specific Relief Act and the facts presented, the Court concluded that the respondent's inclusion was not essential for an effective and complete adjudication of the specific performance suit. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's plea to implead the respondent, ultimately dismissing the Special Leave Petition.
|
