KRUSHNA CHANDRA NAYAK Vs. BISWAJIT SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Krushna Chandra Nayak, the present petitioner, filed a petition under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC to be impleaded as a party to Title Suit No. 310 of 1988-I stating, inter alia, that he has obtained a decree for specific performance of contract in Title Suit No. 102 of 1981 against defendants 2 to 4 and father of defendant no. 1 in respect of certain properties which are involved in the present suit. This was, however, opposed to by plaintiffs. Upon hearing and relying upon a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1986 Orissa 74, Sujan Charan Lenka v. Pramila Kumari Mohanty, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Cuttack, rejected the prayer. Hence the present revision.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and opposite party No. 5. None appears for other opposite parties.

(3.) It appears from the impugned order that no sale deed having been executed pursuant to the decree for specific performance of contract passed in Title Suit No. 102 of 1981, the learned Court below held the petitioner to have not acquired any title to the property covered under the decree and therefore, he is not a necessary party to the present suit. The Court, however, gave liberty to the petitioner to make similar prayer when the final decree proceeding is initiated after the decree is passed.