ANIL KUMAR SINGH Vs. SHIVNATH MISHRA ALIAS GADASAGURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Daulat Singh, father of the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 51 of 1989 for specific performance of a contract of sale said to have been executed on 22/9/1986 agreeing to sell 7.17 acres of the land bearing Plot No. 655. Pending decision in the suit, Daulat Singh died. The petitioner came on record as legal representative of Daulat Singh. He filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code seeking leave to amend the plaint by impleading the respondent also as a party-defendant in the suit. The contention of the petitioner is that Shivnath Mishra, the vendor, had colluded with his sons and wife and had obtained a collusive decree in Suit No. 393 of 1990 under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. By operation thereof, they became co-sharers of the property to be conveyed under the agreement and, therefore, the respondent is a necessary and proper party. The trial court dismissed the petition and on revision, by the impugned order dated 13/7/1994, the High court of Allahabad dismissed the Civil Revision No. 369 of 1993. Thus this SLP

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent having secured an interest as a co-owner in the land by operation of decree of the court toeffectuate the ultimate decree of the specific performance that may be granted in favour of the petitioner, the respondent is a necessary and proper party, and the High court, therefore, has committed grievous error in refusing to bring the respondent on record as second defendant. He seeks to place reliance on Order I, Rule 3, Order I, Rule 10 (2 and Order 22, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. We find no force in the contention

(3.) Order 22, Rule 10 postulates continuation of suit by or against a person who has, by devolution, assignment or creation, acquired any interest during the pendency of a suit, by leave of the court. The obtaining of a decree and acquiring the status as a co-owner during the pendency of a suit for specific performance, is not obtaining, by assignment or creation or by devolution, an interest. Therefore, Order 22, Rule 10 has no application to this case