The single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra of the Patna High Court held that a third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added so as to convert a suit for one character into a suit of a different character.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent agreed to sell the suit property and the petitioner was in possession of the property. Then, the remaining amount was paid to the defendants on several occasions and the sale deed was not executed. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner.
The Intervenor/respondent IInd has filed a petition for impleadment in the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) along with Section 151 of the C.P.C. on the ground that he is the owner of the suit property and has a valid title in view of the decree in Partition. The learned court below allowed the impleadment application, resulting in the present application.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the intervener has no legal interest in interfering in the suit as it is the suit of specific performance of a contract. The counsel relied upon the judgment titled Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shivnath Mishra, and Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and Others.
Contentions of the Respondent
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that the intervener is the owner of the property and he is a necessary party to the suit.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that it is not permissible to change the character of a suit by adding a third party or a stranger to the contract.
Furthermore, the court observed that to add a party to the suit, the twin test must be satisfied. The first one is that such a party must have a legal basis for seeking relief from the issues involved in the proceedings. The second is that without this party, no significant decree can be delivered.
It was noted that Defendant No. 2 is not the owner of the suit property.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that Defendant no. 3 is a necessary party to the suit and no interference is required in the order passed by the court below.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the application.
Case Title: Rafat Jahan Vs Mr. M. Anwar Abbas
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Case No.: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.511 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar Rai, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Shivendra Prasad, Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :