SAROJ DEVI Vs. MUKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated September 1, 2006 of learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of first respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be impleaded as party under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code in a suit for specific performance instituted by the plaintiff appellant.

(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the appellant (for short 'plaintiff') filed a civil suit for specific performance against the second and third respondents (for short `defendants') on the basis of an oral agreement to sell allegedly entered upon on January 10, 2004 in regard to land bearing khasa No. 24 at the rate of 1. 75 lac per bigha. It was pleaded that despite payment of sum of Rs. 21,000/- the defendants declined to execute sale deed. During the pendency of the suit first respondent (for short `applicant') moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stating therein that applicant was the bonafide purchaser of half of the land in question and agreement to sell was already executed on February 9, 2003 and he paid entire sale consideration i. e. sum of Rs. 24,94,000/- to the defendants and actual possession of the land was handed over to the applicant and sale deed of about 9 bighas land had been executed. The defendants filed written statement and denied the execution of oral agreement. The application seeking impleadment was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated February 18, 2006. The writ petition preferred against the said order was allowed by learned Single Judge as indicated above. Hence this special appeal.

(3.) IN their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed thus:- "from a plain reading of the expression "all the questions involved in the suit" used in Order 1 Rule10 (2) CPC it is abundantly clear that the legislature clearly meant that only the controversies raised as between the parties to the litigation must be gone into, that is to say, controversies with regard to the right which is set up and the relief claimed on one side and denied on the other and not the controversies which may arise between the plaintiffs or the defendants inter se or questions between the parties to the suit and a third party." It was further held that ``there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of controversies involved in the proceedings, or (2) no effective decree can be passed in his absence."