Madhya Pradesh High Court
Uma Bai vs Smt. Vimla Bai on 17 August, 2023
Author: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
MISC. PETITION No. 3019 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
UMA BAI W/O SHRI LAXMINARAYAN, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
H.NO. 2416, LUNIYAPURA (GOKULGANJ) MHOW
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. VIMLA BAI W/O LATE SHRI SHIVDAS
SANTOSHI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE KESHAVANAND
NAGAR COLONY VILLAGE KODARIYA
TEHSIL MHOW (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. MUNNIBAI W/O RAJU NEKA, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2.
HOUSEWORK R/O 1473, CHANDERMARG
MHOW (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI RAVINDRA MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE)
.................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 04.07.2023
Pronounced on : 17.08.2023
................................................................................................................
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 17-08-2023
16:23:04
2
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
1. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 01.07.2022
passed by the trial Court whereby her application under Order 1 Rule
10 of the CPC for impleadment of proposed defendant No.2 has been
rejected.
2. The plaintiff has instituted an action in 2009 for specific
performance of contract dated 27.01.2005 executed between her and the
defendant and for permanent injunction. During pendency of suit she
filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleadment
of one Smt. Munni Bai as a party to the suit submitting that the suit
property has been purchased by her from the defendant on 19.08.2008
during pendency of the suit. The defendant had no right to sell the
same. The purchaser Munnibai has instituted an action bearing Civil
Suit No.11-A/2010 for eviction of the plaintiff by contending herself to
be the owner which has been decreed by the trial Court by judgment
and decree dated 16.03.2020 appeal against which is pending before
this Court. Since Munnibai has been declared as the owner of the suit
property, she is a necessary as well as a proper party to the suit hence
deserves to be impleaded.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 17-08-2023
16:23:04
3. The application was contested by the defendant and has been
rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order by observing that the
suit property had been sold to Munnibai prior to institution of the suit
by plaintiff and she had instituted the action against the plaintiff after
the present suit which is for specific performance of contract in which
the proposed defendant is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The
application is also highly belated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
application has illegally been rejected by the trial Court on the ground
of delay. The proposed defendant has claimed title to the suit property
and has instituted an eviction suit against the present plaintiff which has
been decreed by the trial Court appeal against which is pending before
this Court hence she is a necessary as well as a proper party to the suit.
Looking to the relief claimed by the plaintiff she ought to be joined in
the suit for an effective and complete adjudication of the disputes
between the parties. On the contrary learned counsel for the respondents
has supported the impugned order and has prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record.
6. The proposed defendant No.2 Smt. Munnibai is stated to have
purchased the suit property on 19.08.2008. The same was prior to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 17-08-2023
16:23:04
institution of present suit by the plaintiff in the year 2009. Smt.
Munnibai is hence not a purchaser pendente lite but had purchased the
suit property prior to its institution. Thereafter she instituted an eviction
suit against the present plaintiff which has been decreed by the trial
Court by judgment and decree dated 16.03.2020 appeal against which
has been preferred before this Court. Merely for her claim having been
decreed by the Trial Court, she does not become a necessary or a proper
party to the suit.
7. The present is a suit for specific performance of contract between
plaintiff and defendant. In the same the title of a third party is not
required to be adjudicated upon. The general rule is that a person who is
a stranger to the contract is not a proper party to a suit for specific
performance of contract. In this regard see Panne Khushali and
another V/s. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik and another 1976 MPLJ 170
(FB). The proposed defendant is a total stranger to the agreement to
sale executed between plaintiff and the defendant. Her title in the
present suit is not to be adjudicated upon. The controversy to be
adjudicated upon is whether plaintiff is entitled for specific
performance of contract from the defendant. For that the presence of
proposed defendant would not at all be necessary since she is a total
stranger to the contract. Thus, she is neither a necessary nor a proper
party to the suit.
8. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or perversity
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 17-08-2023
16:23:04
in the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application
filed by the plaintiff. The impugned order is hereby affirmed, as a result
of which the petition is dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 17-08-2023
16:23:04
