Delhi High Court
Sanjay Dhingra vs Balljeet Singh & Others. on 9 September, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* 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
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
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
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
