Naeem Ahmed vs Mahavir Vaid
2012 Latest Caselaw 5662 Del

*           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

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

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