GURMAUJ SARAN BALUJA Vs. JOYCE C SALIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 26-10-1987 of the learned single Judge allowing an application of one Kaka Singh filed under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'), for impleading him as a defendant in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff on l0-5-1983 filed a suit for specific performance of two agreements and, in the alternative, for recovery of Rs.l3,74,000.00 as damages against four defendants. He had entered into these two agreements with the first defendant, who is the wife of the second defendant. The plaintiff contended that defendant No. 1, being the owner of plots Nos. 452A and 452B in Block S, Greater Kailash, Part II, New Delhi, entered into two separate agreements to sell these two plots to the plaintiff for certain consideration and also received earnest money of Rs. 15,000.00 each in respect of these two plots from the plaintiff. Both these agreements were entered into in March 1972, one on 15-3-1972 and the other on 27-3-1972. The third and the fourth defendants were described as developers of the colony in which these two plots are situated. At the time when these agreements were entered into, the sale deeds had not been registered in the name of the first defendant by the coloniser, i.e.defendants Nos. 3 and 4. If was stated that this was so because of certain restrictions placed on the coloniser by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and also because of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1976, though it was stated that the coloniser had received full consideration from the first defendant. The plaintiff then contended, that ina suit filed by the second defendant against his wife, the first defendant, and in which the third defendant was also impleaded as as aparty, a declaration was made by this court that the real owner of the two plots in question was the husband, i.e. the second defendant, and that the wife had no right, title, or interest in these plots and she was restrained from selling these plots to any person and at the same time the third defendant was also directed to execute Sale deeds of these two plots in favour of the husband and also to deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the same to the husband, the second defendant herein. This was suit No. 130 of 1972 and it was decreed on 21-4-1976. It was stated that the decree in this suit was passed ex-parte. The plaintiff, therefore, challenged this decree as well in the present suit. It is not necessary to refer to other averments in the plaint. The plaintiff prayed for a decree of specific performance for a declaration that the ex-parte decree passed in suit No. 130/72 was collusive and was not binding on the plaintiff, requiring defendants Nos. 3 and 4 to execute sale deeds directly in favour of the plaintiff and restraining these defendants from executing sale deeds in favour of defendant No. 2 ,in pursuance of the decree in suit No. 130/72 and also restraining them from handing over possession of the plots to defendant No. 2 ; and in case the court holds that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 should execute the sale deeds in favour of either of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 then requiring either of the defendants No. 1 and 2 or both ro execute the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance consideration and lastly, restraining defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by means of permanent injunction from transferring, assingning or selling or otherwise disposing of the plots or handing overpossession of the same to any third party or to make any constructions thereon.

(3.) Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code. On this application, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were restrained from alienating, selling or transferring the plots to any person in any manner whatsoever and from giving: possession of the same to any person or to make any construction thereon. during the pendency of the suit.