AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract is the petitioner of the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has challenged the Order No. 82 dated August 22, 2017 passed by the learned 1st Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Howrah in the said suit for specific performance being Title Suit No. 75 of 2011.
The learned trial Judge by the order impugned has added the opposite party nos. 4 to 7 as defendants in the suit. The order although is not supported by sufficient reasons but from the said order at least it is appearing that the added opposite parties have acquired right, title and interest over the suit property prior to filing of the suit.
Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner submits that the deed through which the added opposite parties are claiming title over the suit property is under challenge in a separate suit.
Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the added opposite parties submits that on the death of the original defendant his legal heirs and representatives have been substituted in the suit. The said defendants since have transferred their right, title and interest over the suit property to his clients they are not contesting the suit which is running ex-parte against the said substituted defendants. He, therefore, submits that to protect their interest his clients has applied for being added in this suit which has rightly been allowed by the learned Trial Judge.
Heard learned advocate for the parties, perused the materials on record. It is settled position of law that in a suit for specific performance of contract pre-suit transferee is a necessary party.
The added opposite parties have admittedly acquired their right, title and interest over the suit property prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance of the contract in respect of the self-same property. The added opposite parties, therefore, are necessary parties to the suit.
The deed whereby the said opposite parties are claiming title over the suit property is under challenge in a separate suit but so long the said deed is not set aside in the said suit, the addition of the said opposite parties in the present suit is necessary for an effective decree that may be passed in the suit.
In view of the discussion made above the order impugned does not call for any interference.
C.O 3357 of 2017 is dismissed.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.