9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner contended that petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.12.2004 executed by respondent no.1-Smt. Mewa. Respondent no.4. Ranvir Singh has also alleged that respondent no.1 has executed the agreement to sell dated 12.08.2006 in his favour. He contended that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent no.4-Ranvir Singh. 3. He contended that a person can only be impleaded as a party to the suit, if, he is a necessary party and in his absence no decree can be passed. He further contended that in the instant case the presence of respondent no.4 is not required to decide the matter in controversy between the petitioner and respondents no.1 to 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to sell dated 12.08.2006 executed by respondent no.1 in his favour, petitioner-plaintiff is the attesting witness. Thus, certain peculiar circumstances/facts have cropped up in this case. Particularly keeping in view the close relationship between petitioner and the executant of the agreement to sell. 7. In case Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd and others 2013(2) R.C.R (Civil) 875, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as under:- "22. In the case of Vidhur Impex (supra), the Supreme Court again had the opportunity to consider all the earlier judgments. The fact of the case was that a suit for specific performance of agreement was filed. The appellants and Bhagwati Developers though totally strangers to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecific performance, the Court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files Application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the Court or the Application is unduly delayed then the Court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment." 8. It was further laid down as under:- "28. From the bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is manifest that sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wider discretion to the Court to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thomson's case (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has exhaustively dealt with the interpretation and applicability of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 10. 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. 11. It has been pointed out during the course of arguments that respondent no. 4-Ranvir Singh has also filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 12.08.2006, wherein he has impleaded the present petitioner as well as her mother (respondent no.1-Smt. Mewa) as a party to that suit. It is also not disputed that the same land/property is involved in both the suits. So, ei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
