MOOLCHAND BOTHRA Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The writ application filed by the appellant challenging order of the Court below allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, was dismissed after hearing counsel for the parties.

(2.) MR . Maloo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that in a suit for specific performance of the agreement, application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC would not be maintainable and therefore, the Court below and the learned Single Judge of this Court erred in allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Learned counsel further submitted that since the suit for specific performance was in between the parties, who had agreed to sell the land in question, third person's interference would not be permissible as it would change the scope ofthe suit for specific performance of a contract. To buttress his argument, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the apex Court in case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Ors., 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 640 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 379 (S.C.) : (2005) 6 SCC 733. In the light of the judgment, learned counsel submitted that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, the issue to be decided is the enforceability of the contract entered. into in between the parties and no outside interference therefore, would be permissible.

(3.) WE have carefully examined the materials on record and the impugned order. It appears that the Court below in view of the averments made in paras 6 and 8 of the plaint where there was reference about respondents No. 2 and 3 pertaining to an agreement for sale of the property coupled with the application filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, allowed the same as the respondent No. 3 had semblance of title and interest over the property in question and for just adjudication, it was held that respondent No. 3 would be a necessary party. It is undisputed that some reference was made with regard to agreement in between the respondents No. 2 and 3 in paras 6 and 8 of the plaint and an application was filed for addition of party so far as respondent No. 3 was concerned. The Court below and the learned Single-Judge of this Court, on appreciation of facts, therefore, were well within their jurisdiction to allow the application impleading respondent No. 3 as party-defendant for doing complete justice and for effective adjudication of the matter. In a case when some semblance of title or interest is shown by the parties, even in a suit for specific performance of a contract, it would be just and proper to allow such application for addition of party to avoid multiplicity of litigation. In this background, the learned Single Judge of this Court had not committed any jurisdictional error in affirming order passed by the Court below allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.