Madhya Pradesh High Court
MP/483/2024 of ASHISH Vs MAHADEV PRASAD on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 483 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ASHISH S/O RAMESHWARLAL GARG, AGED ABOUT 43YEARS, OCCUPATION: BOOK SELLER R/O: (A) VIMALPUSTAK BHANDAR PUSTAK BAZAR NEEMUCH CANT (B)H O L I CHOWK BAGHANA NEEMUCH (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU JOSHI, ADVOCATE ALONGWITH MS. NENA MISHRA,ADVOCATE)
AND
1.MAHADEV PRASAD S/O LATE SHREE KISHANKOSHAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:GOVT. SERVICE R/O: 1365, NAYA BAZARBIHARGANJ NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)KOSHAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:GOVT. SERVICE R/O: 1365, NAYA BAZARBIHARGANJ NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.VIMLA DEVI (WIDOW SHREE RAMESHWAR LALJI AGRAWAL), AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: HOLI CHOWK,BAGHANA, NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)JI AGRAWAL), AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: HOLI CHOWK,BAGHANA, NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.DEEPAK S/O LATE SHREE RAMESHWAR LAL JIAGARWAL (GARG), AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,OCCUPATION: BOOK SELLER A. VIMAL PUSTAKBHANDAR, PUSTAK BAZAR, NEEMUCHCANT, B.HOLI CHOWK, BAGHANA, NEEMUCH (MADHYAPRADESH)AGARWAL (GARG), AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,OCCUPATION: BOOK SELLER A. VIMAL PUSTAKBHANDAR, PUSTAK BAZAR, NEEMUCHCANT, B.HOLI CHOWK, BAGHANA, NEEMUCH (MADHYAPRADESH)
4.SMT. MANJU D/O LATE SHREE RAMESHWAR LALJI AGARWAL (GARG), AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK, R/O: HOLI CHOWK,BAGHANA, NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)JI AGARWAL (GARG), AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK, R/O: HOLI CHOWK,BAGHANA, NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR NEEMUCH(MADHYA PRADESH)(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed thefollowing:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,defendant No.1 has challenged the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the trialCourt, whereby his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC forimpleadment of Shree Yog Vedant Sewa Samiti (Trust), Indore, IndoreBranch, Neemuch has been rejected.
02. The suit is for specific performance of contract. The proposeddefendant is stated to be the owner and in possession of the suit property bythe defendants. Admittedly, the proposed defendant is not a party to theagreement to sale executed between plaintiff and defendants specificperformance of which has been sought for.
03. In Panne Khushali and Another Vs. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik and Another, 1976 MPLJ 170 (FB), it has already been held that a strangerto a contract in whom independent title is pleaded or asserted is not a necessaryor a proper party to a suit for specific performance of that contract. It has beenheld as under:- "15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we do not agree withthe view taken by Krishnan, J. (as he then was) in Roopkishoreand others v. (supra). The learned Judge has based his view on theground that if the person claiming adversely to the vendors are notjoined as parties in the suit, there would be a problem ofpossession and therefore, in the interest of the purchaser plaintiffand to avoid the multiplicity of suits, he is a proper party. But, inour opinion, these are not the valid considerations. If the plaintiff,even after notice of claim of title hostile to his vendor by anintervener, does not want to join the intervener, he takes the risk.He cannot be forced upon to join the intervener. We are in
agreement with the view taken by Bhargava, J. (as he then was) inGananandrao v. Babulal and others (supra) that in a suit forspecific performance of a contract for sale in respect of a propertyagainst the defendant, some person who applies for beingimpleaded as a party to the suit on the ground, he has a right bybirth in the suit property, cannot be joined as a party under Order1, Rule 10 of the Code, because if such a person was allowed tointervene in the suit as a party, the nature of the suit will changefrom a suit for specific performance of a contract to that of a suitfor title. It has further been held that the proper course is toinstitute another suit for title, impleading parties to the suit inwhich the interveners had prayed for being joined as a party.
16. The question referred to us is :
"Whether in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale,a third Person intervener, who contends that the suit property isjoint property of the applicant, and he is also the co-owner of thatproperty, would be made a party (defendant)."
Our answer is :
Strangers to the contract making a claim adverse to the title of thedefendant (vendor) contending that they are the co-owners of thecontracted property are neither necessary nor proper party andare, therefore, not entitled to be joined as parties to the suit."
04. Thus, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench ofthis Court, the proposed defendant who is not a party to the contract and inwhom an independent title has been claimed is neither a necessary nor a properparty to the suit. The application for its impleadment as a defendant to the suithas rightly been rejected by the trial Court. There is no infirmity in the impugnedorder passed by the trial Court. The petition being devoid of merits is herebydismissed.
Shilpa
(PRANAY VERMA)JUDGE