MAYA DEVI Vs. DULLICHAND & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against the order dated 28.08.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Kishangarhbas, Alwar (hereinafter 'the trial court'), whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC read with filed by the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') seeking deletion of her name from the array of the defendants in a suit for specific performance laid by the respondents-plaintiffs, Dhullichand and Shriram was dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that a suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 - plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') stating that they had entered into a written agreement for sale with the respondent Nos.3 to 9 (defendants in the suit). It was averred in para 4 of the plaint that in respect of the petitioner-defendant's share in the property sought to be purchased, they had also obtained her oral consent for the transaction. Thus, effectively the suit as laid by the plaintiffs was in respect of an agreement to sell dated 03.08.1995 pertaining to agricultural land wherein the petitioner-defendant had a share in respect of which she had also consented and in respect of which the other defendants had executed an agreement to sell dated 03.08.1995. Order 1 Rule 3(a) CPC provides that "all persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative."

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 3(a) CPC stand overridden by the provision of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. He submits that Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC confers discretion on the courts to delete any person from the array of parties in a suit when no apparent cause of action has arisen against such a person and no specific relief has been claimed against such person.