NARESH JHA Vs. CHANDAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 2/2/2023 passed by learned Sub Judge-IV, Rosera in Title Suit No. 199 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court rejected the application dtd. 7/3/2022 of the intervenerpetitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as it appears from the record, are that the plaintiff/respondent 1st set filed Title Suit No. 199/2020 before the court of learned Sub JudgeIV, Rosera for a decree of specific performance of contract in respect of agreement for sale dtd. 5/10/2018 executed by the defendant/respondent 2nd set with ancillary reliefs. The defendant appeared and filed his written statement and contested the suit. The intervener petitioner coming to know about the pendency of the suit approached the learned trial court and filed an application dtd. 7/3/2022 for impleading him as a party defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Sec. 151 of the Code. The plaintiff/respondent 1st set filed rejoinder dtd. 29/3/2022 praying to reject the petition dtd. 7/3/2022 filed by the intervener. After hearing the parties, learned Sub JudgeIV, Rosera rejected the application of the intervener petitioner vide order dtd. 2/2/2023, which is under challenge before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the learned trial court is not sustainable as the learned trial court completely ignored the facts as brought out by the intervener petitioner in his petition seeking impleadment. The intervener petitioner is the exclusive owner of the subject matter of the suit property and the said property is self acquired property of the intervener. The said property was acquired by way of registered sale deed dtd. 11/12/1974. The learned trial court failed to appreciate that the defendant has no authority to execute a purported agreement for sale with the plaintiff, which is subject matter of the suit because the intervener petitioner is still alive and the property is his self acquired property. The learned counsel further submitted that the defendant has no authority to execute agreement for sale with regard to the self acquired property of his father with anybody else till the life time of his father and any agreement for sale, which is subject matter of the suit with regard to the self acquired property of intervener petitioner, is nothing but an abuse of process of the court. In these circumstances, the intervener petitioner is necessary party for proper adjudication of the suit.