* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 09.09.2011
+ CM(M) No. 765/2010 & CM No.10598/2010
SANJAY DHINGRA ........... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Paritosh
Budhiraja, Advocate.
Versus
BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS ..........Respondents
Through: None.
AND
CM (M) No.768/2010 & CM No.10605/2010
VED PRAKASH GUPTA ........... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Paritosh
Budhiraja, Advocate.
Versus
BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS ..........Respondents
Through: None.
AND
CM (M) No.778/2010 & CM No.10665/2010
PREM KHURANA ........... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Paritosh
Budhiraja, Advocate.
Versus
BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS ..........Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
CM(M) Nos. 765/2010, 768/2010 & 778/2010 Page 1 of 5
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 Order impugned is the order dated 12.01.2010 vide which the application of the applicant seeking impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been dismissed.
2 Gurbaksh Singh was admittedly the owner of the suit property i.e. property bearing No. 7, Block 10, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi. He had died intestate on 27.12.1990 leaving behind his six legal heirs; relinquishment deeds have been executed by the four legal representatives in favour of Surinder Singh and Surjeet Singh; by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 26.02.2008, the said Surinder Singh and Surjeet Singh had sold the aforenoted suit property to the applicant and he is in actual physical possession of the said property. He had accordingly sought impleadment in the present suit proceedings.
3 Necessary would it be to state that the present suit is a suit for specific performance which has been filed by Baljeet Singh CM(M) Nos. 765/2010, 768/2010 & 778/2010 Page 2 of 5 against the two defendants; the case of the plaintiff is that the defendants Amrit Pal Singh Randhawa and Smt. Satnam Kaur were the legal representatives of Ranjit Singh Randhawa who was the owner of the said property; Ranjit Singh Randhawa had become owner by virtue of a Will dated 21.12.1989 executed by Gurbaksh Singh in favour of Ranjit Singh Randhawa; as absolute owner of the aforenoted property, Ranjit Singh Randhawa in his lifetime had entered into an agreement to sell with Baljit Singh dated 15.02.2007 for a consideration of Rs.13 lacs; Rs.1 lac was paid by way of Bayana-cum-receipt dated 15.02.2007; since the defendants had not honoured their commitment, the suit for specific performance had accordingly been filed by Baljeet Singh. 4 As noted supra, the petitioner is seeking impleadment in view of the averments made by him in his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. These submissions had not found favour with the trial court who had dismissed his application. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2007 SC 3166 Sumtibai & others Vs. Paras Finance Company to support his submission that in certain circumstances even a third party/stranger can be impleaded if he shows some fair semblance of title or interest in the suit property; in such a situation, the CM(M) Nos. 765/2010, 768/2010 & 778/2010 Page 3 of 5 application for impleadment may be allowed. This was a case where the son and legal representatives of the deceased had sought impleadment; it was in this context, that those observations were made.
6 That apart, the application for impleadment in a suit for specific performance has to show some fair semblance of title or interest in the suit property; the claim of the applicant is founded upon an agreement to sell dated 26.02.2008 entered into between himself and Surinder Singh and Surjeet Singh, legal representatives of Gurbaksh Singh. The contention of the petitioner is that he is in physical possession of the suit property. Prayers made in the plaint by the plaintiff are confined upon the agreement dated 15.02.2007 by virtue of which the plaintiff had paid an earnest money amount of Rs.1 lac in part consideration of the purchase of the suit property; further contention being that the defendants should be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the aforenoted property.
7 While dealing with an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, the test is whether the decree can be effectively passed without impleading the said party and secondly whether the impleading party is necessary to resolve the controversy or dispute in question. This twin test has been reiterated by the CM(M) Nos. 765/2010, 768/2010 & 778/2010 Page 4 of 5 Supreme Court in AIR 1953 SC 521 Deputy Commissioner Vs. Rama Krishna Narain & others. Applying the aforestated test, it is clear that on neither count the petitioner is able to advance his case. The presence of the petitioner is not required for the determination of the matter in dispute which is pending before the concerned court; needless would it be to state that the plaintiff if aggrieved has an independent remedy; his impeadment in fact would only add to confusion and would not resolve the dispute. Impugned order has rightly held so; the said order calls for no interference.
8 Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2011
a
CM(M) Nos. 765/2010, 768/2010 & 778/2010 Page 5 of 5