Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1980 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTRefusal to implead the petitioners as defendants in Special Civil Suit - specific performance of an agreement to sell - Order I, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure - HELD THAT:- In the present case the trial Court as noticed earlier had found some favour with the case set up, based on the final order passed in the inventory proceedings in which the applicant No. 1 is shown to be the heir in respect of the suit property. In my considered view the petitioners would be proper parties to the suit which would enable the court to effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and to decide the controversy in the suit namely whether the relief of specific performance should be granted and if granted in which form i.e. whether or not restricting it to a certain share and the like. This is not a case where, unlike the case of Kasturi [2005 (4) TMI 635 - SUPREME COURT] (where the impleadment was sought on the basis of an adverse title against the Vendor) would enlarge the scope of the suit. More over the impleadment can be allowed subject to appropriate conditions as set out in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 1159 - SUPREME COURT]. This is not a case where, prima facie, it can be said that the petitioners do not have a 'semblance of a title' as held in the case of Sumatibai [2007 (10) TMI 653 - SUPREME COURT] so as to refuse impleadment. Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act also cannot come in the way of such impleadment. This is because section 19 of the Act enumerates the persons against whom specific performance of a contract can be enforced, which would mean that section 19 set outs the party/parties who can be arrayed as necessary parry to the suit, inasmuch as, for enforcing such specific performance, the presence of the parties as enumerated in the said section would be necessary. As noticed earlier, no relief need be claimed against a proper party. Thus, if the considerations as set out in Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code are satisfied, a party can be added as a proper party. The impleadment needs to be granted - The application for impleadment filed by the petitioners is allowed.
|