* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1051/2012 & CM 16494-16496/2012
Date of Decision: 19.09.2012
NAEEM AHMED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. B. Mohan, Adv.
Versus
MAHAVIR VAID ...... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assails order dated 03.07.2012 whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.09.1994 in respect of suit premises stating the same having been executed by respondent No. 1 Mahavir Vaid in his favour. Besides, Mahavir Vaid, the suit was also against others, arrayed as defendants No. 2 to 5. The case was at the stage of final CM(M) 1051.2012 Page 1 of 3 arguments when the instant application was filed by the petitioner for impleading Prabha Devi (respondent No. 2), the wife of respondent No. 1 Mahavir Vaid, as the defendant in the suit. The said application was dismissed by the ADJ vide the impugned order dated 03.07.2012, which is under challenge in the instant petition.
3. The main ground of seeking impleadment of Prabha Devi and also consequential amendments in the plaint was that the petitioner/plaintiff had come to know that the suit premises was in the tenancy of both respondent No. 1 Mahavir Vaid and his wife Prabha Devi under LIC and thus, she was also necessary and property party in the suit for specific performance, that was filed against her husband and other defendants.
4. It is a matter of record that the written statement was filed by the defendant on 06.05.1999, wherein they had taken the plea that the suit premises was earlier in the joint tenancy of Mahavir Vaid and Prabha Devi. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was also filed by the defendants and the rent receipt in the names of both of them was also filed. Not only this, Prabha Devi was also examined by the defendants as a witness DW-3. This would show that the CM(M) 1051.2012 Page 2 of 3 petitioner/plaintiff was well aware, right from 1999 that Prabha Devi was also co-tenant in the suit premises under LIC. No steps were taken for impleading her for the last 13 years. No reason has been assigned. It is only when the case had reached at the stage of final arguments that the instant application was filed for impleading her as a defendant.
5. In any case, Prabha Devi does not appear to be either necessary or proper party in the suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24th August, 1994 executed between him and respondent No. 1 Mahavir Vaid. She is neither signatory nor privy to the said agreement, but is stranger to the transaction that was the basis of the suit filed by the petitioner. The impleadment of Prabha Devi in the suit, would unnecessarily complicate the issues involved in the suit of the plaintiff.
6. I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of ADJ and thus, the petition stands dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 awanish CM(M) 1051.2012 Page 3 of 3