KUPPAYEE Vs. THAJUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a third party to an agreement of sale can be impleaded as a party defendant, at her instance, in a suit for specific performance, is the question to be answered in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) THE petitioner herein as a third party filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead her as proposed party/ second defendant in a suit filed by the first respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the second respondent on 29.4.2002 in respect of an extent of 55 cents of land. The suit in O.S.No. 40 of 2007 came to be filed on the file of the Sub Court, Kallakurichi by the first respondent herein against the second respondent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.\Bheeman, argued that the petitioner is the title holder in respect of 10 cents of land forming part of the suit property and if a decree for specific performance is granted behind her back, it would ultimately affect her interest and therefore in order to arrive at a proper decision by taking note of all the facts and circumstances, impleading of the petitioner as party defendant in the suit is highly necessary and consequently, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC ought to have been allowed by the Court below. In support of his contention, the learned counsel heavily relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (4) L.W. 865 = 2007 (10) SCC 82 in the case of Sumtibai and Others Vs. Paras Finance Co., Mankanwar and others . The learned counsel also fairly placed two other contra judgments reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 424 (SC) = 2008 (13) SCC 658 in the case of Bharat Karasondas Thakkar Vs. Kiran Construction Co., and others as well as 2010(3) L.W. 67 in the case of Krishnan Vs. P.Palanisamy and others.