Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17535 = 2023(3) L.A.R. 190
Decided on: 20.12.2022
Present:
Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the respondent No.9.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20 -- Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell – Subsequent purchaser as party – It is in the interest of the plaintiff if the subsequent vendee is impleaded as a party so as to enable the Court to pass a comprehensive decree directing the subsequent vendee to join in the execution of the sale deed if the suit is decreed -- Subsequent vendee has a right of hearing and he is alleging that the original defendants are colluding with the plaintiff – Order permitting the purchaser to be impleaded as party upheld.
(Para 1, 4, 5)
Cases referred:
1. Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson and Others, (2020) 13 SCC 773.
2. Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors (P) Ltd. And Others, (2013) 5 SCC 397.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. –
1. The petitioner herein has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. During the pendency of the suit, a subsequent purchaser has been permitted to be impleaded as a party. This revision petition has been filed assailing its correctness.
2. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper-book.
3. The learned counsel representing the petitioner, while relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson and Others (2020) 13 SCC 773, contends that the subsequent vendee is not a necessary party.
4. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner and have carefully read the judgment referred to above. It would be noticed that the Supreme Court in Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors (P) Ltd. And Others (2013) 5 SCC 397 had examined the aforesaid matter, in detail. Moreover, it is in the interest of the plaintiff if the subsequent vendee is impleaded as a party so as to enable the Court to pass a comprehensive decree directing the subsequent vendee to join in the execution of the sale deed if the suit is decreed. The subsequent vendee will get an opportunity of hearing failing which he will be delaying the execution of the decree. The subsequent vendee has a right of hearing and he is alleging that the original defendants are colluding with the plaintiff. In such circumstances, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.
6. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Petition dismissed.
********