2015 (2) TMI 1407 - HC - Indian Laws

Impleadment of a party to the suit - Suit for specific performance of contract - HELD THAT - Freshly impleaded defendant-applicant (respondent No.2 herein) has claimed to be owner of the property in dispute by way of purchase in public auction held by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and thus, is asserting right, title and interest in the property. In tune with law laid down in Sumtibai and others Versus Paras Finance Company Manknwar w/o Parasmal Chordia (D) and others 2007 (10) TMI 653 - SUPREME COURT , leaving such party unimpleaded in litigation would be resulting in truncated resolution of dispute which would lack wholesomeness. It would also not be effective, competent and appropriate adjudication. Where a third party clearly has right, title and interest in the property in dispute, impleadment of such party in the suit, rather, becomes necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and for competent, complete and effective adjudication of the litigation among the parties. Looking from another angle, applicant-respondent-defendant claims ownership in the suit property even earlier to filing of the suit by the plaintiff, petitioner herein, who is real sister of the respondent-vendor- defendant who was in litigation with State Bank of Patiala before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and this property having been sold in public auction had lost her title in the said property. The impugned order affirmed - the revision petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impleadment of a third party in a suit for specific performance of contract.
2. Validity of impleading a third party in a pending litigation.
3. Ownership claim by a third party in a property under dispute.
4. Multiplicity of litigation and the necessity of impleading relevant parties.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of a contract against the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed for impleadment of a third party, claiming ownership of the disputed property. The petitioner objected to the impleadment based on the Specific Relief Act, arguing that a stranger to the agreement cannot be made a party.

2. The respondent-applicant, however, contended that he had a valid claim to the property as it was purchased in a public auction by him after the defendant defaulted on a loan. The respondent argued that impleading him was essential to avoid multiplicity of litigation and ensure comprehensive adjudication.

3. The court noted that the petitioner and the respondent were siblings, and the agreement in question was unregistered. It was revealed that the property in dispute was sold in a public auction before the suit was filed, and the respondent claimed ownership prior to the litigation. The court emphasized the need to include all relevant parties to prevent incomplete resolution of the dispute.

4. Citing legal precedents, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to allow the impleadment of the third party. The lower court's order highlighted the necessity of including the third party for effective resolution and to address concerns of collusion between the original parties. The judgment concluded that impleading the third party was crucial to avoid fragmented adjudication and ensure a comprehensive resolution of the dispute.

In conclusion, the revision petition challenging the lower court's order was dismissed as it lacked merit, affirming the decision to implead the third party for a complete and effective adjudication of the litigation.