TIRUPATI BALAJI ENTERPRISES Vs. ANTHONY PATRICK LEWIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Chamber Summons is taken out by the Plaintiff for impleading Respondent Nos. 1 to 8, as party Defendant Nos. 11 to 18, and amending the plaint by incorporating averments concerning the newly added Defendants and seeking reliefs against them. The application is made in the following circumstances.

(2.) BY Consent Decrees dated 28 October 1986 and 14 November 1986, the predecessor in title of Defendant Nos. 3 to 9 herein conveyed the suit properties, which consist of 2 agricultural lands admeasuring respectively 20 and 7 acres, to Defendant No. 1. By an agreement for sale dated 18 December 2007, Defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit properties to the Plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 5 crores. The present suit is filed by the Plaintiff for specific performance of that agreement for sale. In the course of hearing of a Notice of Notion taken out by the Plaintiff for interim reliefs in respect of the suit properties, Defendant No. 1 filed an affidavit disclosing that during the pendency of the suit, i.e. on 7 May 2013, Defendant No. 1 had gifted the suit property by a Deed of Gift to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are his daughters. The affidavit further disclosed that thereafter, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by a conveyance deed dated 29 May 2013 conveyed the suit property to Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 is a partnership firm in which Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are partners. After learning about these transfers, the Plaintiff took out the present Chamber Summons for bringing these subsequent events on record and for joining Respondent Nos. 1 to 8, as Defendant Nos. 11 to 18 to the present suit. Apart from the averments concerning these subsequent events and in support of the reliefs claimed against proposed Defendant Nos. 11 to 18, the Plaintiff seeks to add averments concerning its readiness and willingness to perform the suit agreement for sale, which, according to the Plaintiff, was left out in the original plaint due to oversight and bonafide mistake.

(3.) MR . Rajiv Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 to 8, formulated the following grounds opposing the Chamber Summons :