Arumakonda Prasad vs Dwarampudi Veera Venkata Rama Reddy and Another

Eswara Prasad, J.—The petitioner sought to be impleaded as the 2nd defendant in a suit filed by the first respondent against the 2nd respondent for specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the first respondent. The said petition was dismissed by the court below and the petitioner has filed the present revision against the said order.

The first respondent filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the second respondent. The petitioner sought to be impleaded as a party to the suit on the ground that the 2nd respondent executed a registered mortgage deed in respect of the said property in his favour. The Court below dismissed the application holding that the petitioner is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Others, Khaja Abdul Khader v. Mahabub Saheb, 1979(2) A.W.R. 277 and Gyaneshwar Rao v. Mahmood Shareef, 1982(1) ALT 195 and contended that judicial discretion vested in the court under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC should be exercised properly and that since the petitioner is the mortgagee of the suit property, he is a necessary and proper party to the suit, and that no harm will be caused in impleading him as the 2nd defendant in the suit.

In B. Somaiah and Others Vs. Amina Begum, this Court held that where a person applies to be made a party to a suit, what the court ought to see is whether there is anything in the suit which cannot be determined owing to his absence or whether there will be prejudice by his not being added as a party. The petitioner bases his contention on the mortgage deed in his favour. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if he is not impleaded as a party to the suit, as his claim is against the suit property, and whoever the owner of the property, makes no difference, as far as the petitioner is concerned. No relief is claimed against the petitioner in the suit. As this being a suit based on an agreement of sale, to which the petitioner is not a party, and any decree to be passed in the suit will not be prejudicial to him, the court below correctly held that he is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. The order of the Court below needs no interference in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.