***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) –

Power of attorney filed on behalf of respondent No.1 has been received through Registry. Power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed today in Court, which is taken on record.

2. Arguments heard.

3. The petitioner, who is a third party to Civil Suit No.646 of 2022, titled ‘Balkar Singh v. Rajeev Kumar and others’, has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 31.01.2026 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur, whereby his application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking impleadment as a defendant, has been dismissed.

4. Briefly, respondent No.1-plaintiff has instituted the aforesaid suit seeking possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.06.2020, besides declaration concerning agreement dated 08.05.2019 allegedly executed in favour of Amrit Pal and consequential relief of permanent injunction.

5. The petitioner sought impleadment on the ground that defendant No.1-Rajeev Kumar and his brother Sanjeev Kumar had subsequently entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.04.2021 with him in respect of land measuring 5 Kanals 15 Marlas and had received substantial consideration. Alleging concealment of earlier transactions and collusion between the existing parties, he claimed that his presence was necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute.

6. The learned Trial Court declined his prayer, primarily observing that the petitioner claims under a subsequent agreement and has already instituted an independent suit concerning his rights.

7. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the property covered by the petitioner's agreement overlaps with the suit property and that any decree passed in his absence may adversely affect his contractual rights. It is accordingly submitted that his impleadment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

8. Having considered the submissions and examined the impugned order, this Court finds no ground warranting interference.

9. The principles governing impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC are well settled. A necessary party is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed, whereas a proper party is one whose presence is required for complete and effective adjudication of the questions involved in the suit. In Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person claiming an independent right adverse to the vendor and purchaser is ordinarily not entitled to impleadment in a suit for specific performance merely to have his independent claim adjudicated therein. The distinction between necessary and proper parties has also been explained in Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417.

10. In the present case, the plaintiff seeks enforcement of an agreement dated 23.06.2020, whereas the petitioner bases his claim upon a subsequent agreement of the year 2021. The validity and enforceability of the plaintiff's agreement can be adjudicated between the existing parties. Although the petitioner claims rights under a subsequent agreement concerning overlapping property, such claim does not, by itself, establish that his presence is indispensable for deciding the controversy in the present suit.

11. Importantly, the petitioner has already instituted a separate civil suit titled ‘Gagan Singla v. Sanjeev and others’, concerning his agreement to sell, in which the present plaintiff is also a party. His contractual rights and the competing claims arising from the respective agreements can, therefore, be examined in those proceedings. The apprehension that the outcome of the present suit may affect his interests does not automatically confer upon him a right to be impleaded. Nor can the allegations of fraud or collusion, by themselves, justify enlargement of the scope of the present suit to adjudicate an independent contractual claim.

12. The learned Trial Court has considered the relevant circumstances and exercised its discretion upon a legally sustainable basis. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not intended to substitute this Court's discretion for that of the subordinate Court merely because another view may be possible. No patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference is made out.

13. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein shall not prejudice the rights and contentions of the petitioner or the other parties in the independently instituted suit, which shall be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law.

14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********