Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Dilip Bharadwaj And Anr on 26 October, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010235012013
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/366/2013
ON THE DEATH OF PARESH CHANDRA SINGHA, HIS LEGAL HEIRS SMT.
CHHANDA SINGHAWIFE and ORS
1II SRI JOYDEEP SINGHA SON, 1III SRI JAYANTA NARAYAN SINGHA SON,
1IV SMT. SHILPI PAUL DAUGHTER, 1V SMT. SUMANDA DEB DAUGHTER,
ALL ARE R/O. DAS COLONY, P.O. and P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM.
2: CHAMPA SINGHA
W/O LT. JIBESH CHANDRA SINGHA
3: CHITRA SINGHA
D/O LT. JIBESW CHANDRA SINGHA
4: PROSENJIT SINGHA
S/O LT. JIBESH CHANDRA SINGHA
ALL R/O CHANDI CHARAN ROAD
RANGIRKHARI
SILCHAR TOWN
P.O. and P.S. SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSA
VERSUS
DILIP BHARADWAJ and ANR
S/O LT. NALINI RANJAN BARMAN, R/O COLLEGE ROAD, AMBICAPATTY,
P.O. and P.S. SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM
2:NIYATI BHARADWAJ
W/O SRI DILIP BHARADWAJ
R/O COLLEGE ROAD
AMBICAPATTY
P.O. and P.S. SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
3:ON THE DEATH OF SMT. JANAKI GOUR
HER LEGAL HEIRS
W/O LT. BHUJAN GOUR
R/O DAS COLONY
P.O. and P.S. SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
3.1:SMT. SUNITA GOUR
W/O LATE PRADIP KUMAR GOUR
R/O DAS COLONY
P.O
P.S - SILCHAR
DISTRICT- CACHAR (ASSAM)
3.2:SMT SUMA GOUR
D/O LATE PRADIP KUMAR GOUR
R/O DAS COLONY
P.O
P.S - SILCHAR
DISTRICT- CACHAR (ASSAM)
4:SABITRI GOUR
W/O LT. BHUJAN GOUR
R/O DAS COLONY
P.O. and P.S. SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
5:SHANTI GOUR
W/O LT. BHUJAN GOUR
R/O DAS COLONY
P.O. and P.S. SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D SENAPATI
Advocate for the Respondent :
Page No.# 3/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 26-10-2021
Heard Mr. P. Deka, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Jain, counsel appearing on behalf of
Mr. B.K. Purkayastha for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
For the purpose of disposal of the instant proceedings the presence of respondent Nos. 3,4, 5 and
6 is not necessary because they are Defendants in the Title Suit No. 04/2013 as the question of
impleadment in a suit is between the plaintiff and the Applicant seeking impleadment.
The case of the petitioners is that they have filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with
Section 151 CPC for impleading them as defendants to the Suit on the ground that they are occupants
of the suit land on the basis of jot right and maliki right. The suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
is a suit for specific performance of contract agreement dated 05.09.2012. It is no longer res Integra
that in a suit for specific performance only the parties to the contract or parties claiming under them can
be a party to the said suit. In this regard the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733 wherein the Supreme Court at
para 7 has categorically held who should be parties in a suit for specific performance. The said
paragraph is quoted herein below :-
" 7 : In our view, a bare reading of this provision, namely, second part of Order 1 Rule 10 sub-
rule (2) 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 or without 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- (1) 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."
The claim of the petitioners herein is that they have independent 3rd party rights over the
suit land on the basis of their occupation as could be arrived at from a perusal of their application under
Order 1 Rule 10 sub-rule (2).
Page No.# 4/4
In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, I do not find that the order passed by the
learned Trial Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment was erroneous
or requires interference of this Court and accordingly the instant petition stands dismissed.
It is further observed that the petitioners who claim their right over the suit land on the basis of their
purchase and occupation would always be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings as permissible
in law to protect their right, title and interest, if any over the suit land.
The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the suit in
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible taking into account that the suit is of 2013. No costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
