KAMATCHI Vs. NATESA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant has preferred this revision against the order of the learned Trial Judge in allowing the I. A. ,to implead the first respondent herein, a third party, as the second defendant in the suit.

(2.) THE first respondent/third party filed the I.A. , to implead him as the second defendant in the suit filed by the second respondent/plaintiff as against the revision petitioner/defendant. THE suit is for specific performance of the sale agreement alleged to be entered between the plaintiff and the defendant. THE plaintiff's case is that one Swaminatha n has settled the suit property to the defendant by a settlement deed dated 24. 11. 2004 and the defendant has agreed to sell the suit property on 21. 2. 2005 by a sale consideration of Rs. 1,45,600/= and paid the advance of Rs. 1,20,000/=. Since the defendant has not executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff within the period of three months he has instituted the suit as against the defendant.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that by allowing the implead application the first respondent has been permitted to convert the suit filed for specific performance as a suit for declaration without paying any court fees and that too as a defendant. THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that in a suit for specific performance as to the enforceability of the agreement, the dispute is between the plaintiff and the defendant who are vendor and vendee and there is no scope for impleadment of the third party in the suit.