DILBAG SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is against the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for transposition of the 5 th defendant as a coplaintiff in a suit for specific performance. An agreement of sale by the vendors stipulated the period of performance as to be done before 30.05.2006. The agreement had been in the favour of some plaintiffs of whom Joginder Singh was one of the parties and the other plaintiffs were assignees from one Dharampal. 5th defendant was also a party to the agreement of purchase reserving to himself a right to 1/4th share but since the 5th defendant did not join the plaintiffs, the latter sought for specific enforcement only in respect of all the share of property, sans the 1/4th share of 5th defendant. It appears from the recital in the body of the plaint that the plaintiffs had actually purchased a portion of the property and plaintiffs had stated that they were seeking for specific enforcement with reference to their own entitlement, for the balance property after further deducting the share of the 5th defendant. They have paid the court fee proportionate to the value of the property for which they were seeking for enforcement of the agreement. In the same plaint they had also stated that they were willing to pay the balance of sale consideration also if the share of the 5th defendant could also be conveyed in their favour.

(2.) The 5th defendant filed a written statement on 06.11.2007 contending that he is willing to have a purchase for 1/4th share and that therefore the decree could provide for specific enforcement of the whole of the remaining property covered under the agreement apart from the portion of property that had been actually sold by the vendors.

(3.) The statement was filed on 06.11.2007. The transposition application however was dismissed as not pressed when the parties including the vendors had brought about the compromise and the 5th defendant felt no need to pursue the claim for transposition.