C.D. SANJAY RAJ Vs. N. ANANDHA KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present respondents No.1, 2, and 3, as plaintiffs, have instituted a suit in O.S.No.104/2010, against the present respondents No.4 and 5 arraigning them as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the Court of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the Trial Court') for the relief of specific performance with respect to sale of an immovable property.

(2.) During the pendency of the suit, the present petitioner, claiming himself as another agreement holder for sale dtd. 16/5/2008 of the very same suit schedule property in his favour by the defendants No.1 and 2, filed an interlocutory application, i.e. I.A.No.4 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the CPC') seeking his impleadment in the suit as defendant No.3. The Trial Court, vide its order dtd. 24/3/2016, rejected the said interlocutory application. Aggrieved by the same, the impleading applicant (petitioner herein) in the Trial Court has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his argument submitted that, the present petitioner is a necessary party for the adjudication of the dispute in O.S.No.104/2010. After entering into a registered sale agreement dtd. 16/5/2008 (Annexure C) for purchase of immovable property from the defendants 1 and 2, the present petitioner has also paid the balance amount of the sale consideration through a supplementary agreement dtd. 2/7/2008 (Annexure D) and also has obtained a registered irrevocable power of attorney (Annexure E) in his favour. Thus, the said registered agreement at Annexure C has acted as a public notice. Therefore, the plaintiffs are supposed to have the knowledge of the said transaction, as such, should have impleaded the present petitioner also as a party in the original suit filed by them. Contending that the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs. Kiran Kant Robinson and others reported in (2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 773 would not come in the way of the petitioner herein getting himself impleaded in the original suit filed by the plaintiffs, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon few reported judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which would be referred to herein afterwards at the appropriate stages.