PRERNA SEEMAR KALRA Vs. PRAMOD ANAND AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 16th November, 2017, the following order was passed in this petition:-

(2.) Though the counsel for the petitioner has not filed the copies of the pleadings and the issues framed in the suit but on enquiry informs that i) the respondents no.2 & 3 viz. Jayadittya Palit and Rajika Puri instituted the suit, from which this petition arises, against the respondent no.1 for declaration that they had agreed to purchase an immovable property from the respondent no.1 and had paid the entire sale consideration thereof to respondent no.1 and were put in possession of the property by respondent no.1 and were owners of the property and for restraining the respondent no.1 from interfering with the said ownership rights of the respondents no.2 & 3; ii) that there is no Sale Deed by the respondent no.1 in favour of the respondents no.2 & 3 and only an Agreement to Sell; iv) that the respondents no.2 & 3 further sold the property to the petitioner; and, v) that the petitioner applied for substitution / impleadment in place of the respondents no.2 & 3 who are not interested in pursuing the suit.

(3.) I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how the suit for declaration was maintainable when the appropriate remedy was to file a suit for specific performance.