ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Vs. CHARANJEET SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this revision petition is as to "whether a tenant can ask for impleadment in a suit for specific performance being a stranger to the agreement?" In brief, the plaintiff (petitioner herein) filed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 06.03.2006, entered into by defendants No. 1 and 2 (respondents No. 1 and 2 herein) in respect of shop No. 299, Auto Market, Hisar for a consideration of Rs. 30,45,000/- against which Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid as advance and the target date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 03.07.2006. According to the plaintiff, he paid another sum of Rs. 3 lacs to defendants No. 1 and 2 on 14.04.2006 and the target date was extended upto 03.08.2006 and thereafter upto 20.12.2006. It is also submitted that in total, a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/-was received by defendants No. 1 and 2 on different dates, as mentioned in the agreement, and since defendants No. 1 and 2 refused to own up their commitment, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit.

(2.) After appearance, defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement to the suit and admitted to have received Rs. 8,00,000/- instead of Rs. 11,00,000/-. They also pleaded that they were present in the office of the Sub Registrar on the date fixed but the plaintiff did not turn up with the balance payment for getting the sale deed executed and registered. Thereafter, on the pleadings of the parties, as many as 8 issues were framed by the trial Court.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, one application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by M/s. Hero Water Meters, 289, Automobile Market, Barwala Road, Hisar through its partner Ranjeet Singh for impleading it as defendant in the suit.