Abhay Narayan Singh vs Vidyabhushan Pandey And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 12551 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7691 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Abhay Narayan Singh
 
Respondent :- Vidyabhushan Pandey And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh,Rahul Sahai
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present petition arises out of an order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.04, Varanasi, rejecting the application of the petitioner for impleadment in a suit for Specific Performance Act filed by the respondent-plaintiff and the order dated 18.07.2022 whereby the revisional court has also rejected the revision.

Admittedly, between the parties another suit by the present petitioner bearing O.S.No.884 of 2009 for specific performance with regard to a different agreement to sell in his favour was filed. The suit of the petitioner was decreed on 17.02.2012. Against the said suit, a Civil Appeal No.60 of 2012 was filed by the respondent which is pending consideration. Both the suits are with regard to the same property. There is a dispute as to who had inherite/got title over the property and which of the agreement to sell is the correct one. In the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, the petitioner is not a party and in the suit filed by the petitioner, the plaintiff-respondent is not a party.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a right to be impleaded as a party in the suit filed by the plantiff-respondent as he has certain claim with regard to the property in dispute. For the said purposes, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (6) SCC 733; Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal & others.

It goes without saying that in case the petitioner is having a right to be impleaded in the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, similarly plaintiff-respondent would also have a right to be impleaded in the suit of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly agreed that, in fact, both the suits should be decided together to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and conflicting decrees being passed by the Courts. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the property involved in both the suits is the same.

Looking to the facts and circumstances, it is provided that the O.S.No.261 of 2016 pending before the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.4, Varanasi is connected with the Civil Appeal No.60 of 2012 pending before the VIIth Additional District and Sessions, Varanasi. The Original Suit No.261 of 2016 as well as the Civil Appeal No.60 of 2012, shall be heard together by the appellate Court in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.

(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)

Order Date :- 12.9.2022

Arjun/-