Hukum Singh @APPELLANT@Hash Khubdan

This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 07.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barmer, in Civil Original Suit No.145/2011 may kindly be set aside and in consequence thereof the application filed by the respondent no.4 applicant to implead it as party respondent may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction whichthis Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted a civil suit for specific performance of agreement and permanent injunction against the respondentsdefendants and submitted in the plaint that the plot in question has been purchased by defendant No.1 in the name of defendant No.2 & 3. However, later on, defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sale dated 07.08.2002 with defendants No.2 and 3 for purchase of the said plot in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the agreement to sale has been executed between the plaintiff and the defendant on 05.07.2011, and as per the condition of the said agreement, defendant No.1 agreed to sell the plot in question to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.61,000/-, and the defendant No.1 also received a sum of Rs.50,000/- in advance and agreed to pay the remaining consideration of Rs.11,000/- at the time of execution of the registered sale deed. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed the suit for specific performance of such agreement to sale dated 05.07.2011 executed in his favour by defendant No.1.

The respondent No.4 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading as party in the suit, alleging that looking to his old and actual possession over the plot in question, a patta came to be issued by the Municipality in his favour, and thus, the respondent No.4, being the actual owner, should be heard before final adjudication of the dispute. The said application was however, allowed by the learned court below vide the impugned order dated 07.02.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Pavittar Singh Vs.

Rai Singh & Ors. reported in 2011(4) Civil Court Cases 783 (P&H), whereby the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has laid down the law that the suit for specific performance does not require the third party to a contract to be a necessary party.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus, harped upon the issue that the respondent no.4 is a third party and has no bearing upon the agreement in question, and thus, the learned court below was not justified in allowing the application moved by respondent No.4 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that since the respondent No.4 is having a patta issued by the concerned Municipality in his favour in respect of the plot in question and is claiming ownership over the same, in respect whereof, the specific performance is being sought, therefore, the learned trial court was well justified in allowing the application moved by the respondent No.4 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and in that view of the matter, no case for interference in the well reasoned impugned order is called for.

Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. It is needless to say that the impleadment of the respondent No.4 shall, however, not prejudice the case of the petitioner on merits.