U SUMATHY Vs. SANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, aggrieved over the order of the learned Additional Judge, Puducherry at Karaikkal, dated 1.9.2010 in impleading her as a party to the suit in O.S. No. 55 of 2007 on an application filed by the first Respondent herein in a suit against the second Respondent, has come up with the present civil revision petition.

(2.) The first Respondent herein has filed the said suit against the second Respondent for specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been entered into between them. In the said suit, the first Respondent has filed an application in I.A. No. 78 of 2008 to implead the Petitioner as a party. In the affidavit in support of the application, it has been set out that subsequent to the filing of the suit, the second Respondent deliberately sold the property to the Petitioner with ulterior motive and in order to defeat her claim. Hence, the Petitioner should be made as a party to the suit to avoid multiplicity of suits in future. The said application was allowed by the said Court holding that though the schedule of property in the suit as well as the property of the proposed party do not have almost the same boundaries, the proposed lay out filed by the second Respondent reveals that the second Respondent has prepared lay out with one proposed road running from North to South dividing the road extent into two parts. But the sale deed Ex. R.1 of the Petitioner has got a sketch on the back of the deed and the perusal of the said sketch reveals that the second Respondent has not divided the plots as he proposed at the earlier point of time as per the proposed lay out and subsequently, has removed the proposed road and sold the property in favour of the Petitioner. Therefore, the lay out filed by the second Respondent himself is entirely different from the sketch enclosed along with Ex. R.1 and that does not tally with the boundaries as well as with the description. Therefore, the learned trial Judge felt that after impleading the proposed party as a party to the suit and after appreciation of evidence in trial, a final decision can be arrived at. Thus, the Petitioner, according to the learned trial Judge, is a necessary party to settle the dispute and without her, the suit cannot be tried in a full-fledged manner. Aggrieved over the said finding, the present civil revision has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is not a proper or necessary in the suit that has been filed by the first Respondent against the second Respondent for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into between them. To support his case, he relied on the decisions reported in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Ors., 2005 6 SCC 733 Leelavathi v. Sri Venkateswara Finance, 2009 2 CTC 697 and Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Ors., 2010 7 SCC 417