Telangana High Court

M/S C.S.K.Realtors Ltd., vs Vinod Gupta on 24 July, 2024

Author: P.Sree Sudha

Bench: P.Sree Sudha

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

         CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.733 of 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated

14.11.2023 in I.A.No.1310 of 2023 in O.S.No.1088 of 2007,

passed by the learned VI-Additional District and Sessions

Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

2. Petitioner herein has filed an application in I.A.No.1310 of

2023 in O.S.No.1088 of 2007, before the trial Court against the

respondent herein, under Order I rule 10 R/w Section151 of

C.P.C, seeking to implead them as defendant in O.S.No.1088 of

2007. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both

sides, allowed the application. Aggrieved by the said order,

petitioner therein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The brief facts of this case are that the revision petitioner

is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies

Act. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific

performance of the agreement of sale dt.27.09.2006 allegedly

executed by respondents No.2 to 4 herein/ defendants. It is

further contended that the defendants No.1 and 2 have given up

their interest in the suit schedule property, as such they did not

choose to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and they

failed to lead any evidence. As a matter of fact the Revision

petitioner is the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration

and they acquired the rights over the suit schedule property.

During the second week of October, 2023, when the Revision

Petitioner went to the suit schedule property to take

measurements, some persons objected the same and informed

about the suit pending before the trial court. At that the

Revision petitioner engaged a counsel and enquired about the

suit. The Revision petitioner purchased the suit schedule

property through a registered sale deed vide No.9243/2018

dated 28.05.2018, since then the Revision Petitioner is in

possession of the same. When the registering authority refused

to register the sale deeds, the Revision Petitioner had filed

W.P.No.42588/2017, before this Court and as per the directions

of this Court, the registering authority has registered the same.

In view of these circumstances the Revision Petitioner is a

necessary party to the suit. Therefore, the Revision Petitioner

filed a petition to implead them as defendant in the suit.

4. In the counter filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff in

I.A.No.1310 of 2023, he stated that the implead application was

filed at the fag end of the case at the instance of contesting

respondents No.2 to 4 only with an intention to protract the

litigation. The Revision Petitioner had allegedly purchased the

suit schedule property during pendency of suit, as such they

are not bona fide purchasers. While filing the suit, he had also

filed an application in I.A.No.3208/2007, seeking temporary

injunction against the respondents No.2 to 4/defendants

restraining them from alienating the suit schedule property to

third parties. The trial court granted ad-interim injunction and

the same was extended until further orders vide docket orders

dt.16.04.2008. Respondents No.2 to 4 have executed sale deed

in violation of the interim orders, therefore it is bad in law. The

Revision petitioner was very much aware of the pendency of the

suit, as such he filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High

Court seeking direction to register the sale deed, since the

Registrar refuse to register the same. Having learnt about the

sale deed obtained by Revision Petitioner, he filed

W.P.No.31417/2018 to declare the sale deed of the Revision

Petitioner as null and void. In the Writ Petition, notice was

served upon the Revision Petitioner and they have filed counter

also. These proceedings would clearly demonstrate that the

Revision Petitioner had knowledge of the suit in 2018 itself.

Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned trial judge having heard both the parties

considered the facts and the law and eventually dismissed the

impleading petition having observed that Revision Petitioner is

not a proper and necessary party to the suit.

6. Now the point for consideration is that whether the order

of the trial court passed in I.A.No.1310/2023 dated 14.11.2023

is sustainable in law and on facts?

7. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 relied upon the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurmit Singh

Bhatia Vs.Kiran Kant Robinson and others, 1 in which it was

held as follows:

"5.2. An identical question came to be considered before this Court in Kasturi Vs.Iyyamperumal case and applying the principle that the plaintiff is the dominus litis, in the similar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court observed and held that the question of jurisdiction of the court to invoke Order I rule 10 C.P.C to add a party who is not made a party in the suit by the plaintiff shall not arise unless a party proposed to be added has direct and legal interest in the controversy involved in the suit. It is further observed and held by this Court that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question as to who is a necessary party. The 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

(2020) 13 SCC 773

passed in the absence of such party. It is further observed and held that in a suit for specific performance the first test that can be formulated is, to determine whether a party is a necessary party there right to the same relief against the party claiming to be a must be a necessary party, relating to the same subject-matter involved in the proceedings for specific performance of contract to sell. It is further observed and held by this Court that in a suit for specific performance of the contract, a proper party is a party whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the controversy involved in the suit. It is further observed and held that the parties claiming an independent title and possession adverse to the title of the vendor and not on the basis of the contract, are not proper parties and if such party is impleaded in the suit, the scope of the suit for specific performance shall be enlarged to a suit for title and possession, which is impermissible. It is further observed and held that a third party or a stranger cannot be added in a suit for specific performance, merely in order to find out who is in possession of the contracted property or to avoid multiplicity of the suits. It is further observed and held by this Court that a third party or a stranger to a contract cannot be added so as to convert a suit of one character into a suit of different character."

8. The Revision petitioner contended that they purchased

the suit schedule property in the year 2018, but why he has

kept quiet for a long period of five years in approaching the trial

court is not properly explained. It appears that only for the

purpose of inventing the cause of action, the Revision Petitioner

contended that in the second week of October, 2023, they came

to know about the pendency of the suit. This contention also do

not stand to scrutiny because the respondent No.1/plaintiff had

filed W.P.No.31417/2018, challenging the very sale deed relied

upon by the Revision Petitioners in the said writ petition and

the Revision Petitioner herein have submitted the counter also

thus, it is evident that the Revision Petitioner had knowledge of

the pendency of the suit in 2018 itself. When the Revision

Petitioner has knowledge of pendency of suit, kept quiet for five

years and filed the impleading petition at the belated stage,

when the suit has ripen for disposal, which is not correct. This

practice of filing the petition at the fag end of the case shows the

intention of the Revision Petitioner to procrastinate the

litigation.

9. Originally the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed the suit for

specific performance of agreement of sale dated 27.09.2006. The

suit is pending since 2007 i.e., almost 17 years lapsed. As on

the date of filing of impleading petition, the suit was coming up

for arguments. At present the arguments are also heard and the

suit is ripe for judgment, at this stage approaching the trial

Court with an impleading petition is not just and proper.

10. The records of the trial court in I.A.No.3208/2007 would

clearly reveal that the respondent No.1/plaintiff sought

ad-interim injunction restraining respondents No.2 to

4/defendants from alienating the suit schedule property and the

learned trial court has granted ad-interim injunction. As on the

date of registering the sale deed of the Revision Petitioner i.e.,

28.05.2018, the ad-interim injunction granted by the trial court

was in force, therefore the sale deed obtained by the Revision

Petitioner is not tenable in the eye of law.

11. In an impleading petition the petitioner has to show that

without impleading them, the suit cannot be disposed of

effectively. In the present case the Revision petitioner failed to

demonstrate as to how his rights would be effected and as to

why the trial court cannot pass the effective Judgment. The

proceedings would clearly show that the Revision Petitioner has

been watching the proceedings and at a belated stage, he

approached the Court with the contention that they are

necessary party having purchased the suit property pendente

lite of the litigation, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if such a

plea is entertained it would enlarge the scope of the suit and

may lead to multiplicity of the proceedings. If a party has right

and interest in the suit schedule property, such right cannot be

agitated in a suit for specific performance of contract.

12. The learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff relied

upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Vidhur Impex and Traders Private Limited and others Vs.

Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd., and others 2 in which the

following principles for impleading a party were framed:

i) The court can at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issue involved in the suit.

ii) A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the court.

iii) A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made.

iv) If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the plaintiff.

v) In a suit for specific performance, the court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation

vi) However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the Court or the application is unduly delayed then the court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment.

AIR 2012 SC 2925

13. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff further

relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd vs. Residency

convention center and Hotels Private Limited 3. In the said

decision and Hon'ble Apex court while considering the scope

and ambit of Order I rule 10 (2) of CPC, held as follows:

"A third party cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance if he has no semblance of title in the property in dispute. That would un-necessarily protract or obstruct the proceedings in the suit. The court may at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party may order a party to be joined whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit".

14. In view of the forgoing discussion the orders passed by

the trial Court is a reasoned order and there is no irregularity or

illegality in the orders passed by the trial court, therefore while

confirming the orders passed by the trial court in

I.A.No.1310/2023 dated 14.11.2023, the Revision petition

deserves to be dismissed.

15. In the result, the present Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed, confirming the Order of the trial Court dated

2010 (7) SCC 417

14.11.2023, passed in I.A.No.1310 of 2023 in O.S.No.1088 of

2007. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand