JAGDAMBA PRASAD Vs. UMASHANKAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Feeling aggrieved by an order dated 14.2.1997 passed by the Trial Court allowing an application filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for their impleadment in the suit as defendants, the plaintiff-applicant has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impunged order.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-applicant as well as the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents and have also carefully perused the record.

(3.) The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass. The plain tiff-applicant had filed a suit against Umashankar Pandey, the respondent No.1, praying for a decree specific performance of an agreement of sale relating to the house in dispute and for the recovery of possession thereof. The plaintifff had based his claim on an agreement of sale executed by the defendant on 2.7.1967 in favour of the plaintiff through the mother, the natural guardian of the said defendant, who was minor at that time. The plaintiff had asserted that the house in dispute exclusively belonged to and had continued to be in possession of the defendant and it was recorded as such in the record maintained by the Nagar Palika, Bhander.The plaintiff further asserted that the defendant had attained majority and the plaintiff was entitled for the specific performance of the agreement after payment of the balance consideration of Rs. 37,000/-. It was claimed that the plaintiff had always been willing and ready to perform his part of the contract and the defendant inspite of notice had not executed the sale-deed for the property in dispute, hence the suit.