2016 (2) TMI 1381 - HC - Indian Laws

Application for impleading him as a party to the suit allowed - Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell - no privity of contract between the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent no.4 - HELD THAT - As per the ration of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS NANAK BUILDERS AND INVESTORS P. LTD. AND ORS. 2013 (2) TMI 898 - SUPREME COURT , 'a proper party is the person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all the matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made'. So, even if no relief is claimed against a person but, if his presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all the matters involved in the suit, he will be considered to be a proper party and got impleaded as a defendant in the suit. In the instant case also respondent no.4-Ranvir Singh has raised certain issues which requires his presence to enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all the matters in issue. Though, no relief has been claimed in the suit against him. But, certainly his rights are likely to be effected from the decision of the suit as he is also seeking the specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.08.2006 executed by respondent no.1 in his favour with respect to the same land. Consequently, no fault can be found with the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court to allow the application filed by respondent no.4 for impleading him as a party to the suit. There are no illegality in the impugned order calling for interference by this Court while exercising the supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The present revision petitions having, no merits, are hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Impleading a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against respondent no.1, alleging an agreement to sell dated 27.12.2004. Respondent no.4 claimed respondent no.1 executed a separate agreement in his favor on 12.08.2006. The petitioner argued respondent no.4 was not a necessary party as his presence was unnecessary to decide the dispute. Citing case law, the petitioner contended that respondent no.4's impleadment was wrongly allowed. However, the court noted the peculiar circumstances as the petitioner is the daughter of respondent no.1, the executant of the agreement. Respondent no.4 alleged collusion between the petitioner and respondent no.1, raising significant issues. The court referred to Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd, highlighting principles for impleadment, emphasizing the presence of a proper party for effective adjudication, even if no relief is sought against them.

The court found respondent no.4 raised issues requiring his presence for a complete adjudication, affecting his rights as he sought specific performance based on the 2006 agreement. Relying on the authoritative judgment in Thomson's case, the court upheld the trial court's discretion to allow respondent no.4's impleadment. It was noted that respondent no.4 had also filed a suit for specific performance involving the same property and parties, suggesting consolidation to avoid conflicting outcomes. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petition, finding no merit to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, affirming the trial court's decision to allow respondent no.4's impleadment.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the court's considerations regarding the impleadment of a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, emphasizing the importance of a proper party for effective adjudication and addressing the peculiar circumstances of the case involving familial relationships and conflicting claims to specific performance agreements.