RAJ KUMAR Vs. INDERJEET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition has been directed against order dated 3.3.2020 (Annexure P-l) whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10 and 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short "CPC") for impleadment of parties and amendment of plaint has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 5.9.2012 in respect of land measuring 10 kanal 7 marlas, purported to be executed by respondent-defendant. The trial reached the stage of culmination when the instant application was filed by the petitioner for impleadment of Babu Lal son of Dharampal, Manoj Kumar son of Somdutt and Jai Bhagwan son of Chailu Ram by contending that respondent-defendant executed agreement to sell in respect of suit property measuring 4 Kanal in favour of the aforesaid persons to cause loss to the petitioner. It was also pleaded that on the basis of sale agreements, two suits have been filed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner would argue that since the persons sought to be impleaded as a party have also staked their claim to the suit land on the basis of agreements, purportedly executed by respondent in their favour, impleadment of Babu Lal and others is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the matter in controversy. It is further argued that the trial court has committed a serious error rather illegality by dismissing the application primarily on the ground that the same has been filed at a belated stage. It is argued that delay itself can not constitute a valid ground for rejecting impleadment of a necessary party or amendment of pleadings, if otherwise required for complete and effective adjudication of the matter.