LAWS(KAR)-2018-1-496

RAMESH Vs. ASHA PRAKASH

Decided On January 11, 2018
RAMESH Appellant
V/S
Asha Prakash Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, who is an agreement holder of the agreement dated 22.2.2003 said to have been executed by the defendants in O.S.No.303/2007 who are not made parties in this writ petition, is before this Court against the order dated 19.8.2017 passed on an I.A. made in O.S.No.303/2007, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/impleading applicant under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The present respondent, who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court, filed O.S.No.303/2017 against the defendants 1 to 9 for specific performance to enforce the agreement dated 15.4.2006, against the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the registered agreement in respect of the suit schedule property accepting the balance consideration, contending that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property and they have executed an agreement for a sale consideration of Rs. 6 lakh, which was registered on 18.4.2006 and the defendants have received a sum of Rs. 4,98,000/- on the date of the registration of the agreement and the balance amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- has to be paid. In spite of repeated requests made, the defendants have not executed the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendants filed written statement, denied the entire plaint averments.

(3.) When the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW1, at that stage, the present petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead him as additional defendant contending that he is also an agreement holder from the defendants under an agreement dated 22.2.200 He is a proper and necessary party to adjudicate the case and to resolve the dispute between the parties. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections, denied the entire averments made in the application and further contended that the application was filed only to drag on the proceedings and sought for dismissal of the application.