THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2067 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 02.06.2023 in I.A.No.417 of 2023 in O.S.No.276 of 2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.
2. O.S.No.276 of 2015 was filed by the respondent No.1 herein against respondents No.2 and 3 for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 20.07.2014 and alternate relief to pay the amount with interest was also sought for. During the pendency of the said suit, petitioners herein filed I.A.No.417 of 2023, stating that they have purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deeds dated 27.07.2021 vide document Nos.1143 & 1144 of 2021 on the file of Joint Sub-Registrar, Chityal. The husband of the petitioner No.2 herein had received a message from Dharani portal of Nalgonda District stating that a suit was pending in respect of the suit lands purchased by them and on enquiry they came to know about the pendency of the suit. The respondent No.3 did not disclose about the pendency of the suit at the time of registration with a malafide intention and he had also 2 mentioned wrong boundaries in the link documents. They intend to contest the matter by filing a written statement. They also stated that as they are enjoying the suit lands, they are proper and necessary parties to the suit and hence requested the Court to implead them as defendants No.3 and 4 in the suit. The trial Court observed that they are neither necessary parties nor the proper parties to adjudicate the suit further and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, they preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. As per Order 1 rule 10 of C.P.C, necessary party is the one in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed and the proper party is the one who is necessary for final decision of the questions involved in the proceedings. Therefore, the addition of the parties is depending upon the judicial discretion which has to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the particular case. It was observed by the trial Court that as per the record, respondent No.2 had sold the suit land to respondent No.1 and accordingly an Agreement of Sale was entered between them on 20.07.2014 for a total sale consideration of Rs.14,81,250/- and received Rs.12,00,000/- as advance and agreed to receive the balance of Rs.2,81,250/- within one year from the date of execution of the Agreement of 3 Sale. When respondent No.1 approached the respondent No.2 on 10.06.2015 to pay the balance amount, he refused to receive the same and then respondent No.1 came to know that respondent No.2 executed the registered sale deed vide document No.4482 of 2014 dated 06.11.2014 in favour of respondent No.3 with a malafide intention to cause loss to him and thus played fraud upon him. The respondent No.1 presented the plaint on 22.06.2015 and the same was numbered as O.S.No.276 of 2015. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.3 did not turn up before this Court, hence he was set exparte. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.3 herein executed two registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners and sold the suit lands in their favour, as such they are proper and necessary parties and therefore petitioners requested the Court to implead them as parties in the suit for proper adjudication of the dispute, but the trial Court observed that if they are added as parties, the scope of the suit for specific performance would be enlarged and it would be converted into a suit for title and for effective adjudication of the suit, the presence of such parties cannot be said to be necessary parties and accordingly dismissed the application. 4
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Guruswamy Nadar Vs. P.Lakshmi Ammal and others, in which it was held as follows:
"Where a litigation is pending between a plaintiff and a defendant as to the right to a particular estate, the necessities of mankind required that the decision of the Court in the suit shall be finding, not only on the litigant parties, but also on those who derive title under them by alienations made pending the suit, whether such alienees had or had no notice of the pending proceedings. If this was not so, there could be no certainty that the litigation would ever come to an end".
He also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kasturi Vs. Uyyamperumal and others, in which it was held as follows:
"Second part of Order 1 rule 10 sub-rule (2) of the CPC would clearly show that the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if they are dead their legal representatives as also a person who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. In equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased with notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party. Tests are - (i) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.
He further submitted that though the petitioners are not necessary parties, they are proper parties. 5
5. Admittedly, the proper party is the one who is necessary for final decision of the questions involved in the proceedings and for proper adjudication of the case. Considering the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds that the Order of the trial Court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside and petitioners are to be impleaded in the suit to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and for proper adjudication of the case.
6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the Order dated 02.06.2023, passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.417 of 2023 in O.S.No. of 276 of 2015. There shall be no Order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 02.11.2023 tri 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2067 of 2023 DATE: 02.11.2023 TRI