THAVARAYIL SALIM Vs. THEKKEVEETTIL KARUVANTEVALAPPIL SARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law involved in this Original Petition is whether the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale can seek to implead the attesting witness to the agreement as additional defendant in the suit, invoking Rule 10(2) of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that she is likely to deny her signature in the agreement.

(2.) The petitioner filed O.S. No. 297 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Kuthuparamba against the respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendant denied the agreement and her signature in the agreement. She contended that there was no agreement for sale between her and the plaintiff. The defendant also denied the signature of her daughter as an attesting witness in the agreement. According the defendant, the agreement produced alongwith the plaint is a "false and fabricated document created by the plaintiff by forging the signature of the defendant and her daughter Maymoona".

(3.) The petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead Mayamoona, the attesting witness, as supplemental defendant No. 2. The plaintiff also filed an application for consequential amendment of the plaint. In the affidavit in support of the application for impleading, the plaintiff stated thus :