SADHNA ALPESH SHAH Vs. DHRUVKUMAR ANANTSHANKAR SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner have challenged the order dtd. 12/9/2019 passed by the learned 25 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh. 35 in Special Civil Suit No. 86 of 2018 whereby, the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure to implead them as party defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in the suit was rejected.

(2.) The short facts leading to the present case are as under:- 2.1 Respondent No.1- original plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 86 of 2018 against the respondent No.2- original defendant No.1 for specific performance of contract. Before filing of the suit, respondent No.1-plaintiff tried to snatch away the possession of petitioners over the suit land by taking law in their hands and hence, they have filed criminal prosecution as well as Special Civil Suit No. 238 of 2017. As per averments made by respondent No.1-plaintiff an Agreement to Sell was executed by respondent No.2-defendant in favour of respondent No.1 -plaintiff and sale consideration was fixed at Rs.1,75,00,000.00. Respondent No.1- original plaintiff had paid sale consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000.00. As the defendant has not executed sale deed. Respondent No.1 -original plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 86 of 2018. That, the petitioners were necessary parties in the suit and in their absence, no decree can be passed by the Court below. That, the petitioners have right, title and interest in the suit property claimed by the respondent No.1 against respondent No.2. That, in respect of controversy involved in the proceedings and the petitioners are necessary and proper parties the presence of the present petitioners is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. That, petitioners filed application below Exh.35 for impleading them as party defendants No. 2 to 4 in Special Civil Suit No. 86 of 2018. After hearing, learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the application below Exh. 35 in Special Civil Suit No. 86 of 2018 on 12/9/2019.

(3.) Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.