MANOJ KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. LEELABAI KOTHARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/original respondent No.1-Phoolchand Kothari herein instituted a suit for specific performance of contract of the suit property on 26.12.2007 against defendant-Poonam Shukla and her minor son and daughters stating interalia that agreement to sale has been executed by defendant-Poonam Shukla on 27.12.2004 and she is not executing sale deed. During pendency of the civil suit, petitioner herein Manoj Kumar Shukla filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC that he is brother of husband of defendant No.1-Poonam Shukla and the suit property is joint family property in which he has a undivided share/interest and therefore, he is necessary party in the suit and therefore, he be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit, which was opposed by the plaintiff. The trial Court by its impugned order rejected the application finding that impleadment of the petitioner would convert the suit for specific performance of contract into suit for title and thereby rejected the application, feeling aggrieved against the said order, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

(2.) Mr. B. P. Sharma and Mr. Sameer Oraon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the present petitioner having legal interest over the suit property is not only necessary but also proper party, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 (a) to (f) and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 would support the impugned order.