Arshad Ahmed and Another vs Mohd. Shujauddin and Others

K.G. Shankar, J.—The petitioners are the defendants. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Contending that the respondents 2 and 3 who are Government Officials are necessary parties to the suit, the defendants filed IA No. 1090 of 2012 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the trial Court. The trial Court dismissed the application. Assailing the same, the present revision is laid. I am afraid that the petitioners as defendants cannot insist the plaintiff to bring any person as a co-defendant. If it is a case of the defendants that respondents 2 and 3 are necessary parties, the defendants may take advantage of the non-impleading of respondents 2 and 3 and seek for a dismissal of the suit on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties. However, it is not permissible for the defendants to insist that the plaintiff should bring other parties as co-defendants. The trial Court, therefore, is perfectly justified in dismissing the IA No. 1190 of 2012.

This petition is devoid of merits. However, this revision is closed. Needless to state that the petitioners as defendants may request the trial Court to decide the issue regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties as a preliminary issue. In such an event, it is for the trial Court to determine such a petition on its own merits. No costs.