Shankar Abarao Chidrwar vs Sudhakar Bapurao Tak And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1631 Bom

                                    1                    WP 822.2021.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     6 WRIT PETITION NO.822 OF 2021

                SHANKAR ABARAO CHIDRWAR
                             VERSUS
          SUDHAKAR BAPURAO TAK AND ANOTHER
                                 ...
        Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Mukhedkar Amit A.
                                 ...
                   CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.

Dated : January 25, 2021 ...

PER COURT :-

1. The petitioner is a third party fied an appiication

under Order 1 Ruie 10 of the Code of Civii Procedure.

The Triai Court has rejected said appiication soieiy for

the reason that the suit is for the Specifc Performance

of the Contract and no such appiication fied under

Order 1 Ruie 10 of the Civii Procedure Code can be

entertained.

2. In the case of Sumtibai and others Vs. Paras

Finance Co. and others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 82

by referring the Kasturi's judgment in paragraph No.9

the Supreme Court has made foiiowing observations :-

"9. Learned counsei for the respondent reiied on a three-Judge Bench decision of

aaa/-

2 WP 822.2021.odt

this Court in Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumai and ors.MANU/SC/0319/2005 : AIR2005SC2813. He has submitted that in this case it has been heid that in a suit for specifc performance of a contract for saie of property a stranger or a third party to the contract cannot be added as defendant in the suit. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision is cieariy distinguishabie. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision can oniy be understood to mean that a third party cannot be impieaded in a suit for specifc performance if he has no sembiance of titie in the property in dispute. Obviousiy, a busybody or interioper with no sembiance of titie cannot be impieaded in such a suit. That wouid unnecessariiy protract or obstruct the proceedings in the suit. However, the aforesaid decision wiii have no appiication where a third party shows some sembiance of titie or interest in the property in dispute.

In the present case, the registered saie deed dated 12.08.1960 by which the property was purchased shows that the shop in dispute was soid in favour of not oniy Kapoor Chand, but aiso his sons. Thus prima facie it appears that the purchaser of the property in dispute was not oniy Kapoor Chand but aiso his sons. Hence, it cannot be said that the sons of Kapoor Chand have no sembiance of titie and are mere busybodies or interiopers."

3. In view of the above, issue notice to the

respondents, returnabie on 22.2.2021.

( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...

aaa/-