VINTI SOLANKI Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-applicant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 2.9.2013, (Ann. P-6), passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, East Niwar Khandwa in COS No. 10-A/2013, whereby her application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC in the impugned suit, filed by the respondent no. 1 against the respondent no. 2 by impleading the State of M.P. as respondent no. 3 as formal party for specific performance, permitting her to join as defendant has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the averments as well as paper placed on record and impugned order, argued that the property in dispute was initially the property of her father and father of respondent no. 2 and after demise of father contrary to the right of the petitioner, the same was got mutated by the respondent no. 2 in his own name and subsequent to that as alleged he has entered in agreement to sale the same with the respondent no. 1 and on arising the dispute in performance of such agreement between them, the respondent no. 1 has filed the impugned suit against the respondent no. 2 by impleading the State of M.P. as formal party for specific performance. In pendency of the suit, the petitioner in order to protect her interest in the property has filed the impugned application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC with prayer to implead her as defendant in the matter. In continuation, he said that if the petitioner is not permitted to join the impugned suit and if any decree is passed against the respondent no. 2, then his right vested in the property shall be affected and she would be deprived from her right in such property. He further said that in view of provision of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1963, if any decree is passed in the impugned suit in favour of the respondent no. 1, then that shall affect the right of the petitioner. Thus, in such premises, she is necessary party in the matter and prayed for setting aside the impugned order by allowing her application by admitting and allowing this petition. He also placed his reliance of the Apex Court on a decision in the matter of Sumtibai and others Vs. Paras Finance Col. Regd. Partnership Firm, 2007 AIR(SCW) 6125

(3.) Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record including the plaint, (Ann. P-1) and the petitioner's application, (Ann. P-4), its reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 so also the impugned order.