V. PRAGATHI Vs. CH. SREE VANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 22.02.2021 in IA.No.104/2020 in OS.No.524/2005 wherein and whereby the application filed by the 1st respondent herein for impleading herself as proposed 3rd plaintiff was allowed.

(2.) Sri Sharad Sanghi learned Counsel for petitioners/respondents 4 and 5 submits that after the suit is posted for arguments, at the fag end of the trial, present application was filed and if the same is allowed denovo trial needs to be held. He further submits that the suit is for declaration of title and injunction; and that if the present impleadment application is allowed, the same will be hit by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the 1st respondent has to seek necessary amendments to the plaint. Since the trial started, amendments cannot be allowed by virtue of Order-6, Rule 17. He also submits that cause of action will also change, if the present application is allowed. He further submits that the 1st respondent is practically converting the suit for declaration of title and injunction filed by the original plaintiffs into suit for Specific Performance, basing on the registered GPA-cum-Sale Agreement executed in her in favour, which is not permissible under law. In support of his contentions he relied on the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and others , 2010 7 SCC 417 and Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana and Another , 2012 1 SCC 656.

(3.) On the other hand Sri Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent/proposed 3rd plaintiff submits that GPA-cum-Sale Agreement is executed by the original plaintiffs 1 and 2 in favour of proposed respondent and is not contemplating to seek any amendment of the pleadings; and that he was also examined as PW1. He also submits that the cause of action does not change even if the impleadment petition is allowed; and that relief can be granted in favour of original plaintiffs. He relies on the Judgment of this Court in Khaja Abdul Khader v. Mahabub Saheb and others , 1979 AIR(AP) 152 and submits that since the proposed plaintiff is not claiming any relief in his favour, independently, the Judgment laid down by the Apex Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries has no application to the facts of the present case. He also submits that in the present case it is not in dispute that the 1st respondent/proposed 3rd plaintiff has registered GPA-cum-Sale Agreement in his favour executed by plaintiffs 1 and 2; that he has been examined as PW1 in the present case; and that the 1st respondent/proposed plaintiff is not seeking for any amendment of pleadings. He submits that the Court below also considered the Judgments of this Court Khaja Abdul Khader's case and the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries case and also conscious of the fact while deciding the application under Order-1, Rule-10 that merits and demerits cannot be gone into at that stage. He also submits that the 1st respondent/proposed 3rd plaintiff has interest in the suit schedule property since the GPA-cum-Sale Agreement is said to have been executed by the original plaintiffs in her favour.