SKILLTECH ENGINEERS Vs. BUNTY.K.MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner an intending defendant in 1st respondent's O.S.No.6597/2015 for a decree of specific performance of the Agreement dated 29.08.2012 against the 2nd defendant, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 02.03.2018 made by the learned LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-41) at Bengaluru, whereby it's application filed in I.A.No.2 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, 1908 seeking to get impleaded as a defendant to the suit, has been rejected. The respondents having entered appearance through their counsel as caveators, oppose the Writ Petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Business Transfer Agreement dated 26.12.2011, the 2nd respondent-defendant having transferred suit schedule 'B' & 'C' properties in favour of the petitioner- company, could not have executed the Agreement to Sell on 29.08.2012 for conveying a part of 'B' schedule property which is described in 'C' schedule fully in favour of the 1st respondent-plaintiff to the prejudice of the petitioner; petitioner had filed the application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to get itself impleaded as the 2nd defendant to the suit for specific performance of the subject property which is in the lawful occupation of the petitioner; the petitioner being a proper and most necessary party to the suit, rejection of his application for impleadment having caused a manifest injustice, is liable to be set at naught by the writ court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the contesting respondent- plaintiff makes submission in justification of the impugned order inter alia contending that the subject sale deed pursuant to the alleged Agreement of August 2012 executed in favour of the petitioner on 10.03.2015 is subsequent to plaintiff's Agreement dated 29.08.2012 and thus, plaintiff's transaction being prior in time, the impleadment of the petitioner is uncalled for; the Court below having examined the entire matter in depth, has made the impugned order denying impleadment and such orders ordinarily do not merit scrutiny at the hands of writ court in the absence of demonstrable errors of significant magnitude that allegedly result into prejudice to the invoker of the writ jurisdiction.