MT. NAGI Vs. DAMODHAR JAGOBAJI TIDKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision of the order and the findings given on 25-9-1945 by Mr. S.G. Oke, Second Civil Judge (class II), Nagpur, in civil Suit No. 183A of 1943.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that defendants 1 and 2 (non.ap-plicants 5 and 6) executed an agreement of sale of their house in favour of plaintiffs (non-applicants 1 to 4) on 17-7-1941. In that agreement it was provided that the sale-deed would be executed within the time mentioned in it and that if it was not possible to do so, the time would be extended. It was also provided that if any objection was raised on behalf of Balaji Dumnaji Koshti defendants 1 and 2 would be responsible. There were other provisions for damages in case of breach.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 3 and 4 (applicants before me) Claimed to be discharged from the suit on the ground that they were not necessary parties and further that they could not properly be joined in this suit for specific performance. The learned trial Judge held that possession was only a consequential relief and as the plaintiffs had alleged collusion between defendants 1 and 2 On the one hand and defendants 8 and 4 on the other it was permissible to join defendants 8 and 4 as defendants in the suit under Order 2, Rule 8, Civil P.C.